Yglesias: Bush foreign policy has been a ‘huge disaster.’
Yglesias: Bush foreign policy has been a ‘huge disaster.’
On Friday, the Atlantic’s Matthew Yglesias sat down with ThinkProgress to discuss his new book, “Heads In The Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.” Among other topics, Yglesias shared his view on a liberal paradigm for the appropriate use of military force — suggesting that it’s essential, first of all, “to have a recognition of what it is possible to achieve with military force” — and discussing how this view differs from the Bush administration’s reckless and radical doctrine of preventive war:
No president before George W. Bush ever suggested that American security required us to just go decapitate regimes on the theory that they might some day in the future acquire weapons that would be dangerous. It’s been a huge disaster.
Watch it:
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
14 Responses to “Yglesias: Bush foreign policy has been a ‘huge disaster.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
There is no justification for being the first country to shoot in a war. It reminds me of the guy who sold the weapons used in the virginia tech massacre going on campus to preach his resolution to the problem of school violence - more guns! Not less psychiatric medication. Not less gun purchasing restrictions. More guns! Violence breeds violence. It is cyclicle. Hasn’t humanity learned anything from the Middle East?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:26 pm*not MORE gun restrictions.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:28 pmUmmmm….Eisenhower did it at least twice, with Mossadeq in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala; we tried countless times against Fidel. Raygun did it in Grenada and tried it in Libya; and Poppy Bush pulled the same stunt in Panama amd tried it in Somalia. The Clenis went after Milosovicz. We have a bad record in these things, but there’s no scarcity of examples…
April 28th, 2008 at 7:38 pm“It’s been a huge disaster.”
No shit?
What gave you the first clue?
April 28th, 2008 at 7:54 pmtokin librul - incorrect. None of those actions taken by Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush I or Clinton had anything to do with preventative war…that is, war waged on the basis of PREVENTING a future danger of the development of weapons of mass destruction. That’s not to say that most of those “adventures” were ill-advised, though at least Clinton’s was for humanitarian reasons and not geo-political ones.
April 28th, 2008 at 7:59 pm“Heads In The Sand: How the Republicans Screw Up Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats.”
Can anyone explain the phrase “and Foreign Policy Screws Up the Democrats” in the above title?
What does that mean?
April 28th, 2008 at 8:13 pmthough at least Clinton’s was for humanitarian reasons and not geo-political ones.
Go look at the map of Kosovo, and the location and direction of the pipelines that flow through there, and then look for Camp Bondsteel–one of only two man-made structures visible from space–and repeat the fallacy that Clenis’ overthrow of Milosevicz was ‘humanitarian.’
As for the others, the reason for the intervention is and was, in fact, irrelevant. Mossadeq and Arbenz were overthrown because they threatened USer corporate dominion where it had long been established; not for alleged WMD, but for something even more dangerous: nationalism. It was not uniformed military, but CIA whic did those deeds, but they were Murkins nevertheless, and they were engaged in peremptory regime change. The examples of Panama & Grenada are even more apposite, because those regimes were overthrown on the bases that everybody KNEW were invented and spurious. Neither of those was even dangerous; we just tossed ‘em like bad cops, because we could.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:29 pmI’m sure the NeoCons would argue that they didn’t get to CUT OFF ENOUGH HEADS of enough regimes.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:49 pmThe idea of pre-emption was a result of recognition that the world had changed (after 9/11) and we faced different threats that could not be adequately addressed using the reactive measures that we had relied upon in the past. Bush was not the only one who understood that at the time.
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2_KEWUU33Lg&feature=related
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
After 6 1/2 years free from domestic terror, many have become complacent that threat has abated and are also disillusioned with the difficulty, mismanagement and cost of the war in Iraq. Many politicians may want to distance themselves from the policy today, but before the war, most expressed the same concerns that lead Bush to invade in the first place.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pmThought of the day for this administration:
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isacc Asimov
April 28th, 2008 at 9:14 pmAfter 6 1/2 years free from domestic terror, many have become complacent that threat has abated and are also disillusioned with the difficulty, mismanagement and cost of the war in Iraq.
Well, not entirely free from domestic terror. I remember my 4th amendment being shredded. I also remember Habeas Corpus being done away with. Oh yeah, rendition is a very big possibilty, how about the famous hospital scene with ashcroft. Maybe think of every incompetent crony W could find to screw up the DOJ, DOE, Treasury, etc…It goes on and on.
Plus, bin Laden has America right where he wanted it. Bush gave him our country on a platter.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:18 pmo look at the map of Kosovo, and the location and direction of the pipelines that flow through there, and then look for Camp Bondsteel–one of only two man-made structures visible from space–and repeat the fallacy that Clenis’ overthrow of Milosevicz was ‘humanitarian.’Cialis
April 29th, 2008 at 2:04 amDepends on your goals doesn’t it?
Most people STILL view these issues from their own perspective. The perspective of a rational Nation loving AMERICAN. Try looking at it from the Corporate, Fascist, NeoCon, anti-Constitution, anti-Democracy, Anti-American Republican perspective.
From THIS perspective Bush and his policies have been wildly successful.
We need to STOP judging Bush and the NeoCons by our standards. They have a completely different set of values than the ones you probably grew up with.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:27 amThis is one of the pitfalls inherent in being one of the world’s dominant — if not the most dominant — military superpowers, and nearly every single one of the world’s dominant military superpowers throughout history has found this out the hard way. As the old proverb states — “when you have a big enough hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.” It doesn’t seem entirely inappropriate to sum up much of Bush administration foreign policy as “shoot first — or at least flex your muscles in an intimidating manner — and ask questions later, if at all.” While this may be somewhat effective in the short term, there is such a thing as being “penny wise but pound foolish” — and as most of the world’s superpowers throughout history have learned to their great cost, that doesn’t work well in the long run. Insist on riding roughshod over everyone else and quite naturally, they gradually come to resent and hate you — do it often enough, and eventually they band together in force against you.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:52 am