The Clairmont Institute editorializes about the Bush Doctrine, reprinting the four pillars of the Doctrine that Norman Podhoretz extracted from various Bush speeches:

1. The “unapologetic assertion of the need for and the possibility of moral judgment” in international affairs.
2. Repudiation of the “social work” theory of terrorism. The terrorism we face is not spawned by poverty and hunger but by a murderous ideology that desires the destruction of Western liberalism. This ideology is every bit as dangerous as fascism/Nazism and communism.
3. Assertion of the right to undertake what in the past had been called preventive war.
4. The treatment of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs in the context of the war against terrorism. (President Bush is the first American president officially to endorse the idea of a Palestinian Arab state. But the establishment of such a state is to be contingent upon the repudiation of terrorism by the Palestinian Arabs.)

The editorial is worth reading, but here’s the money quote:

Bush and the neo-conservatives understand, like Thucydides, that the security of a state is enhanced when it is surrounded by others that share its principles and interests. CRB editor Charles Kesler shows them in his contribution to The Right War? how they might be more clear-thinking about those principles and interests: Compassionate conservatism is as problematic abroad as it is at home.

We cannot say with any certainty whether or not the Bush Doctrine will succeed. But critics of the doctrine should note that adherence to a particular theory is no guarantee of success. American foreign policy has tried a realist approach (Nixon) and a traditionalist (Carter), and both failed. The Bush Doctrine too will fail, if it is not applied with prudence and blessed with good fortune.

Technorati Tags: Foreign Policy,
American Foreign Policy,
Bush Doctrine.

While Iraqis all over the world joyfully showed their ink-stained fingers by holding up their digit or by making a peace sign, this Iraqi soldier is clearly making a “W” sign.

He couldn’t be making a political statement, could he?

After months of ignoring the increasingly hysterical rhetoric from the left (and months of watching poll numbers drop), the administration launched an information campaign to counter the disinformation campaign.

First, the White House released an unclassified version of the strategy for winning in Iraq, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (also available in original PDF format). The document clearly outlines why we are fighting in Iraq and how we are going to win: by pursuing a three-pronged strategy consisting of a political track, a security track and an economic track.

Second, the president gave a speech to Naval Academy students at Annapolis, noting that this is the first year that the entire student body consisted of those who volunteered to serve their nation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

In the speech, the president promised to continue laying out his strategy and identify the progress that we are making. But today was reserved for one area: training Iraqis to take the place of our soldiers so our men and women can come home:

In the days ahead, I’ll be discussing the various pillars of our strategy in Iraq. Today I want to speak in depth about one aspect of this strategy that will be critical to the victory in Iraq, and that’s the training of Iraq security forces.

I encourage everyone to go read his entire speech, but here are a few highlights that spoke to me:

He told us why we are fighting in Iraq:

Yet the terrorists have made it clear that Iraq is the central front in their war against humanity. And so we must recognize Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. …

The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th. Those terrorists share the same ideology with those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, murdered tourists in Bali, workers in Riyadh and guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. Just last week they massacred Iraqi children and their parents at a toy giveaway outside an Iraqi hospital.

This is an enemy without conscience, and they cannot be appeased. If we’re not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.

Against this adversary there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, and we will never accept anything less than complete victory.

He outlined the progress and success of training Iraqis to hold onto their new democracy:

In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions, made up primarily of United States Marines and Army, with six Iraqi battalions supporting them.

The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties, yet in most situations the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces and securing ground that had already been cleared out by our troops.

This year in Tal Afar it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces, 11 Iraqi battalions backed by five coalition battalions providing support.

Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battlespace, hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods, block by block.

To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order. And reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope. …

Iraqi forces not only cleared the city, they held it. And because of the skill and courage of the Iraqi forces, the citizens of Tal Afar were able to vote in October’s constitutional referendum.

He made a backhand swipe at some naysayers:

Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition.

To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own. It must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries.

Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy.

As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard.

The facts are that Iraqi units are growing more independent and more capable. They are defending their new democracy with courage and determination. They’re in the fight today and they will be in the fight for freedom tomorrow.

He addressed the “exit strategy” issue:

And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down. And when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation.

He supplied a more direct response to his attackers:

Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere, but I believe they’re sincerely wrong.

Pulling our troops out before they’ve achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, “Setting an artificial timetable would discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists. It will confuse the Iraqi people.”

Senator Lieberman is right: Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is weak and an unreliable ally.

Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends.

And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorist tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder and invite new attacks on America.

To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief.

He even had something to make those in or associated with the Axis of Evil uneasy:

Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom’s victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens.

Critics were quick to come out of the woodwork on this one. In fact, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid issued a response to the president’s speech even before the president finished speaking.

The main criticism is that there’s nothing new here, that we are still “staying the course”. This may play to those that either didn’t hear the speech or don’t read the transcript, but I thought the president did a good job of showing how our strategy had changed to meet the realities presented on the ground.

The most important point, however, is that the White House silence has been broken. The president has a clear, multilevel strategy, our forces are altering mission posture when conditions call for it, and there is are documented goals for defining success.

Overall, I believe the president did a good job. His intent was not to restructure policy or lay out an “exit strategy”. His intent was to “sell” the war to the American people. This was a marketing job made necessary by the loud voice of the left.

And when viewed as a marketing speech that is the first in a series of marketing speeches, I judge it a success. That is, it is a very good start. If followed up by a series of speeches that address other strategies and documents other successes, then the American people will turn their backs on the fifth column and the hysterical rantings of Democrat extremists.

Of course, choosing the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas (when most of the public is distracted by more base and selfish pursuits) for launching this counteroffensive is somewhat questionable.

Howard Dean’s Democracy for America continues to demand a set timeline for getting out of Iraq.

The difference of a “timeline” vs. a “plan” is vitally important. Dean and his liberal cronies want to know, right now, exactly when our last troops will be pulled away from protecting the fledgling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

The president, of course, has a “plan” which sets out a series of events that take place, one building on the other, until the country has a good chance of standing on its own. Unlike the frequently fickle and factious left, the president put his plan into place way back in 2003 and is still following it today. Iraq is getting quite close to completing step 5 (write a constitution) and step 6 (ratification) is scheduled for Saturday.

If the constitution is not ratified, then the Iraqi people must return to step 5 and do it again until step 6 is successful. A plan allows for that — a timeline would become nonsensical in that event.

Meanwhile, al-Qaida is hoping that Dean is successful and the United States cuts and runs according to a timeline rather than a plan:

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader says the U.S. “ran and left” in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

“Things may develop faster than we imagine,” Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. “The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam – and how they ran and left their agents – is noteworthy. … We must be ready starting now.”

The similarity to Vietnam is of paramount importance in this debate. In Vietnam, the press waged a sociopolitical war on the war effort and the military and forced the withdrawal from an engagement that we were winning. They are attempting to do the same in Iraq. To allow them to succeed will be to show the United States is a paper tiger after all, to be dismissed as a gutless adversary in the drive to establish a Muslim state.

Further, al-Zawahri’s letter shows the geopolitical importance of Iraq:

“It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established … in the heart of the Islamic world,” al-Zawahri writes.

The letter lays out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq’s secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Replace a few words and you will see an eerie echo of the president’s vision. It would be perfectly natural for the president to say,: It has always been my belief that the victory of freedom will never take place until a democratic state is established … in the heart of the Islamic world. This is our long-term plan: expel the terrorists from Iraq, establish an democratically elected authority and take the gift of freedom to Iraq’s despotic neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

Thankfully, the president will remain president long enough to see the first fruits of his plan — before the left and their media mouthpieces can make the American public “go all wobbly” on the war on Islamofacism.

Update: The Director of National Intelligence has published al-Zarqawi’s letter in its entirety.

Update: Powerline weighs in on the letter from al-Zawahiri.

With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, White House and the majority of govenorships Bush continues to make unnecessary concessions to Democrats. Is the man that ousted the Taliban and freed a nation so afraid of confrontation that he won’t nominate a known conservative to the most important judicial post in the land?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m tickled pink that Bush didn’t nominate gun-grabbin’ Gonzalez, but to pass over great picks like Priscilla Owen and (my fav) Janice Rogers Brown? And talking about gun-grabbers, does anyone know anything about Miers’ stance on the Second Amendment? The War on Guns notes that Miers speaks supportively of Project Safe Neighborhoods. That’s a strike against her right there.

I thought I voted for a conservative — twice. President Bush has demonstrated that he is on the liberal end of that label — twice.

Let’s see how the ‘sphere is reacting:

• Will Bunch Blog details Miers’ involvement with past Bush potential scandals: his National Guard Service and some Texas Lottery Commission shenanigans:
  

  This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. But Bush apparently went for Miers’ top two credentials:

  Loyalty…and a little inside information.

  [HT to Just a Bump in the Beltway]

• Instapundit is “underwhelmed” and QandO Blog agrees:
  

  So far as I can tell, Miers’ qualifications include a tolerable resume and a fierce loyalty to President Bush. And in an administration predicated on loyalty and cronyism, that’s all it takes.

• The Volokh Conspiracy has mixed feelings:
  

  But my initial reaction is that it’s unfortunate (but not surprising) that for both Supreme Court nominations, the president has chosen well-connected insiders with ties to the executive branch, rather than individuals who are more likely to bring a more “independent” perspective to issues of government and especially presidential power. And appointing his “personal lawyer” from Texas seems very Lyndon Johnsonish, and is hardly likely to repel recent charges of Bush Administration cronyism. On the other hand, I’m please that Miers is (a) not from an elite law school; (b) not a federal judge; and (c) spent the vast majority of her career outside the beltway. All good things to bring new perspectives to the Court, and, in the case of (b), break a silly tradition [that Justices MUST be from the federal bench] that has evolved.

• Ankle Biting Pundits gets it exactly right:
  

  Here’s another question – when Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she’d be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don’t think so. To use a phrase, conservatives really have no “skin” in this game, and quite frankly many likely wouldn’t be disappointed if she’s rejected, which will at least give the President a chance to nominate someone that could fire up conservatives.

• Ditto from Betsy’s Page:
  

  The reports are that senators on both sides of the aisle. Well, if that is the criteria on which she was chosen, that is very disappointing. That is not a position of leadership, but of bowing to pressure.

• Confirm Them isn’t thrilled and posts Meirs’ political contributions which go to both sides of the fence (let’s hope she does better with her decisions).
• Outside the Beltway:
  

  While President Bush is not playing from a position of commanding strength, to say the least, at the moment, virtual surrender to the Democrats on something this important is hardly necessary.

• PoliPundit is “not thrilled“.
• Captain’s Quarters is mystified:
  

  Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.

• Angry Clam posting at Patterico’s Pontifications pulls no punches:
  

  You know, just when I thought that the worst possible move that the Bush Administration could make would be to nominate Alberto Gonzales, he goes and shows me up.

• Right Wing News says this is the “worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency”:
  

  To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection. …

  You want a candidate who has “Souter” written all over her? You want a candidate who can’t be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers.

• Power Line is disappointed:
  

  Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination. “Stealth” nominees have not turned out well for Republicans.

  PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer — she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.

• Confederate Yankee is unimpressed.
• Mary Katherine Ham:
  

  Bill Kristol was just on Fox, saying, “it’s hard to see this as anything but a flinch from a fight.”

  He added that it sends a very bad signal for Bush to pass over distinguished conservative women with strong records who have been fighting for constitutionalism for years for someone with no record. I agree.

  [HT to Club for Growth Blog]

• Right Side of the Rainbow is taking a “wait and see” approach, but:
  

  What is it professionally that qualifies Harriet Miers for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court? Is this A) an affirmative action hire, or B) another instance of Bush Administration cronyism or C) both A & B?

• Balloon Juice says the pick doesn’t make sense.
• Michelle Malkin is “utterly underwhelmed” and has a blogosphere roundup.

Last Friday, Right Wing News polled 14 bloggers about the upcoming nomination. It is interesting that five of them specifically mentioned Miers as the choice “you really hope Bush doesn’t pick”. So 1 out of 3 bloggers specifically rejected Miers before she was even nominated!

Blue State Conservative is “having a hard time finding a blogger happy with Bush choice.” Ditto!

Time to write my Senator, for all the good it will do. Although I have hope, encouraged by a post from SCOTUSblog:

I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.

The world failed to notice this little bit of by-play at the G8:

To the amazement of the scientific community, Europe capitulated and backed away from immediate restraints on a growing American economy.

Bush won agreement from the G-8 that the world should await further scientific conclusion rather than rush unwise decisions that could deflate economic growth and lose jobs.

Together with the rout of pro-Kyoto forces in the U.S. Senate two weeks ago, the outcome at Gleneagles constitutes a major energy triumph for Bush when he had seemed headed for defeat.

Bush . . . misunderestimated again.

Denmark’s Queen Margrethe presented the president with a birthday cake at the Fredensborg Palace.

That President Bush is concerned about the deficit is seen by his promise to veto an inflated highway bill even though the last bill to pass expired in 2003:

[The White House] issued a second veto threat Tuesday on any new borrowing that “negatively impacts the deficit.”

After implementing the eighth extension of the expired legislation (which means no new projects), Congress has finally come up with a version that meets with White House approval.

A similar battle is occuring over passage of a comprehensive energy plan, which Democrats have obstructed for four years. President Bush is applying pressure, insisting that Congress sends him legislation by August. But he won’t consider anything that he believes will unnecessarily add to the federal deficit and promises to veto anything that doesn’t meet his requirements:

The House bill contains $8 billion in energy tax breaks and incentives to encourage energy-saving technology and more crude oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear production.

Bush said with the price of oil above $50 a barrel, energy companies don’t need tax incentives to hunt for oil and gas.

Hmmm. Doesn’t exactly match the whole “anything for Shrub’s and Cheney’s oil cronies” lie, does it?

University of Toronto professor John Kirton conducted a study detailing which countries kept pledges of aid made at the 2004 Group of Eight summit (G8) a year ago hosted by George W. Bush.

[Note: The EU, while not a member, also made some commitments and tied with the U.S. and Canada by keeping 72% of them.]

What is surprising is that these are actually fairly high scores, beaten only by the results of the 2000 G8 summit held in Okinawa [so why is Russia allowed to come to thesee summits?].

The high scores reflect well on President Bush, who hosted the Sea Island meeting, Kirton said.

“George Bush is a really very good multilateralist,” Kirton said in a telephone interview from Glasgow, Scotland. “Not only did he host a very successful Sea Island summit but continues to be a very good multilateralist, having America bear its fair share of the burden or more and actually putting those commitments into effect.”

The high level of compliance appears to get beyond earlier divisions over the Iraq war, he said.

“This shows that everybody has bought into what they collectively did at Sea Island and they’re pretty much all pulling their weight in being pretty faithful to fulfilling the promises they’ve made,” Kirton said.

The “stumbling moronic cowboy” image takes another hit.

The UK Times prints an excellent interview with President Bush, covering everything from Mugabe to Kyoto. Too much good material to excerpt here, but I had to relate this one humorous bit:

In person Mr Bush is so far removed from the caricature of the dim, war-mongering Texas cowboy of global popular repute that it shakes one’s faith in the reliability of the modern media.