# Imperial America & the Bush Doctrine - What the hell were the neocons smoking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613 "2006-08-21T17:22:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/1 "2006-08-21T17:22:33Z")
[Re the Bush Doctrine](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine) > [@](#): > > The Bush Doctrine refers to a set of foreign policy guidelines first unveiled by President George W. Bush in his commencement speech to the graduating class of West Point given on June 1, 2002. The policies, taken together, outlined a broad new phase in US policy that would place greater emphasis on military pre-emption, military superiority (“strength beyond challenge”), unilateral action, and a committment to “extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions”. The policy was formalized in a document titled The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 20, 2002. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence and containment that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and the decade between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11. Why didn’t someone stop and say “You know we might be over reaching just a tad”. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/2 "2006-08-21T17:36:10Z")
Well, the West Point graduates probably thought of it as job security. ---
**Author:** ![Mayo\_Speaks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mayo\_Speaks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mayo_Speaks)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/3 "2006-08-21T18:11:04Z")
I’ll take a page from Rumsfeld and interview myself. Did they overreach? Yes. If they had only pinpointed a few places, would they have screwed up any less? Probably not. But is “extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions” a Good Thing™? Of course. Should our reach exceed our grasp? Maybe. Is that what they were thinking at the time? Of course not. Could the group of morons in charge have done any better? They’re pretty incompetent, so probably not. I think I’ll talk like this from now on. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/4 "2006-08-21T18:26:11Z")
You think it is about democracy? You wish. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/5 "2006-08-21T18:43:17Z")
> [@](#): > > greater emphasis on military pre-emption, military superiority (“strength beyond challenge”), unilateral action, and a committment to “extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions”. So THAT’S what they’re calling the old smash ‘n’ grab nowadays! As for what they were smoking, I hear it was a real bitch’s brew composed of two parts hubris, three parts stupidity and four parts stupidity. Mmmm, that’s one stupefying smoke, man! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/6 "2006-08-21T18:52:05Z")
W didn’t invent this stuff, it’s straight from the long-standing ideology of American [neoconservatism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative) – IMO, the same old imperialism in a new bottle. **That’s** what he was smoking. Bush’s statement could have been taken almost verbatim from [PNAC’s Statement of Principles.](http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/7 "2006-08-21T18:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=Mayo Speaks!] I’ll take a page from Rumsfeld and interview myself. Did they overreach? Yes. If they had only pinpointed a few places, would they have screwed up any less? Probably not. But is “extending democracy, liberty, and security to all regions” a Good Thing™? Of course. Should our reach exceed our grasp? Maybe. Is that what they were thinking at the time? Of course not. Could the group of morons in charge have done any better? They’re pretty incompetent, so probably not. I think I’ll talk like this from now on. [/QUOTE] Hmm… actually that works pretty well rhetorically! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/8 "2006-08-21T19:38:27Z")
Stripped of its fancy verbal wrapping paper, neoconservatism is fundamentally the same tactic used by playground bullies everywhere – “I’m bigger than you, so I get to do whatever I want, and I’ll beat up anyone who tries to stop me.” And yet, when you point to the neocons (and their apologists) about how brutishly juvenile such a philosophy is, they end up dismissing you as a “naive” person with no grasp of “realpolitik”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/9 "2006-08-21T20:42:49Z")
[QUOTE=astro] Hmm… actually that works pretty well rhetorically! [/QUOTE] Sorry, the correct answer is - “Does that work pretty well rhetorically? Actually, yes!” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/10 "2006-08-21T20:43:04Z")
There’s nothing wrong with having a strong military, acting unilaterally if it’s neccesary, or extending democracy, liberty, or security. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/11 "2006-08-21T21:02:19Z")
[QUOTE=rjung] Stripped of its fancy verbal wrapping paper, neoconservatism is fundamentally the same tactic used by playground bullies everywhere – “I’m bigger than you, so I get to do whatever I want, and I’ll beat up anyone who tries to stop me.” [/QUOTE] It’s not that at all. It’s the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny. We were the first modern liberal democratic republic. We were the first successful revolution in modern times against the idea of monarchy, and for the idea that there were certain universal rights, and that people could govern themselves. We were a rallying cry to the French revolutionaries, to the revolutions of 1848. Now, did we always live up to that? Of course not. We’ve done a lot of terrible things, both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t change our responsibilities. Like John Winthrop said, we are “a city upon a hill”, and need to be committed to freedom both at home and abroad. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/12 "2006-08-21T21:29:02Z")
Oh that white man’s burden! 'tis so burdensome! -Joe ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/13 "2006-08-21T21:36:15Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] It’s not that at all. It’s the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny. We were the first modern liberal democratic republic. We were the first successful revolution in modern times against the idea of monarchy, and for the idea that there were certain universal rights, and that people could govern themselves. We were a rallying cry to the French revolutionaries, to the revolutions of 1848. Now, did we always live up to that? Of course not. We’ve done a lot of terrible things, both at home and abroad, but that doesn’t change our responsibilities. Like John Winthrop said, we are “a city upon a hill”, and need to be committed to freedom both at home and abroad. [/QUOTE] [That is pure-D bullshit, and extremely dangerous bullshit at that.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269293) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/14 "2006-08-21T21:44:19Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [That is pure-D bullshit, and extremely dangerous bullshit at that.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269293) [/QUOTE] So you believe. I’m not required to share your view, however. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/15 "2006-08-21T21:51:08Z")
[QUOTE=Merijeek] Oh that white man’s burden! 'tis so burdensome! -Joe [/QUOTE] If you notice, I never said anything about race in my post, and, in fact, the two examples I gave both were of American influence on European countries. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/16 "2006-08-22T00:47:59Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] If you notice, I never said anything about race in my post, and, in fact, the two examples I gave both were of American influence on European countries. [/QUOTE] [shrug] Same thing in principle. Kipling defended imperialism on the grounds the “white men” **knew** what was best for the “new-caught, sullen peoples / half devil and half child,” therefore had a duty to impose it on them by force; and all the while the whole idea was a hypocritical justification for economic exploitation. Same with the neocons. **Exactly** the same. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/17 "2006-08-22T00:50:13Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [shrug] Same thing in principle. Kipling defended imperialism on the grounds the “white men” **knew** what was best for the “new-caught, sullen peoples / half devil and half child,” therefore had a duty to impose it on them by force; and all the while the whole idea was a hypocritical justification for economic exploitation. Same with the neocons. **Exactly** the same. [/QUOTE] From [George Orwell’s essay on Kipling:](http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011h.html#part17) > [@](#): > > Kipling spent the later part of his life in sulking, and no doubt it was political disappointment rather than literary vanity that account for this. Somehow history had not gone according to plan. After the greatest victory she had ever known, Britain was a lesser world power than before, and Kipling was quite acute enough to see this. The virtue had gone out of the classes he idealized, the young were hedonistic or disaffected, the desire to paint the map red had evaporated. He could not understand what was happening, because he had never had any grasp of the economic forces underlying imperial expansion. It is notable that Kipling does not seem to realize, any more than the average soldier or colonial administrator, that an empire is primarily a money-making concern. Imperialism as he sees it is a sort of forcible evangelizing. You turn a Gatling gun on a mob of unarmed ‘natives’, and then you establish ‘the Law’, which includes roads, railways and a court-house. He could not foresee, therefore, that the same motives which brought the Empire into existence would end by destroying it. It was the same motive, for example, that caused the Malayan jungles to be cleared for rubber estates, and which now causes those estates to be handed over intact to the Japanese. The modern totalitarians know what they are doing, and the nineteenth-century English did not know what they were doing. Both attitudes have their advantages, but Kipling was never able to move forward from one into the other. His outlook, allowing for the fact that after all he was an artist, was that of the salaried bureaucrat who despises the ‘box-wallah’ and often lives a lifetime without realizing that the ‘box-wallah’ calls the tune. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/18 "2006-08-22T01:06:48Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] There’s nothing wrong with having a strong military, acting unilaterally if it’s neccesary, or extending democracy, liberty, or security. [/QUOTE] But of course there…can be. How strong a military? Do we pour 100% of our budget into it? What if our enemies only have sticks and stones to fight with? Do we need an advanced, nuclear missile defence laser? Giant robots? Should we pool our military with other nations totally, partially, or not at all? Should we buy superior arms from abroad, or use inferior arms if they’re made in the country? Do we focus on many poorly equipped troops, or fewer but better armed troops? Acting unilaterally if necessary; should we always act by ourselves? What if the enemy is too strong, should we commit ourselves to fighting them alone anyway? How far are we prepared to go unilaterally before we start pissing off other countries; are good diplomatic relations unimportant? And who decides what’s necessary? Is it necessary because we want to? Because we have no other choice? Because we might take a small hit otherwise? Extending democracy, liberty, and security; Do we set up a republic? A straight democracy? Fiefdoms? Do we convert nations to our way of government, or let them decide? What if they pick a dictatorship? And what about liberty? Do we let others decide that, too? Should we make them count as “free” what we count as free? Gay marriage, no sexual or racial discrimination, the death penalty; do we let them decide, or should we just make them do as we do? How about security? Why not just draft everyone in the country? Should we spend our defence budget on conventional arms, or emergent technologies? Is pre-emptive war good, or bad? Should we just nuke everyone, to make sure? Having a strong military, acting unilaterally if necessary, and extending democracy, liberty, and security are sentiments just as easily abused as any other. Sure, they can be good sentiments. Is there anything wrong with them? There _can be_. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/19 "2006-08-22T01:08:03Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] . . . the recognition that America is special, and that we have a unique role to play, a unique destiny . . . [/QUOTE] This is the kind of bullshit, delusional chest-pounding that puts extremist butts in airplane seats. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613/20 "2006-08-22T02:13:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry, the correct answer is - “Does that work pretty well rhetorically? Actually, yes!” “I’ve got time for one more question. Is anyone buying this bullshit? Amazingly, yes.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/imperial-america-the-bush-doctrine-what-the-hell-were-the-neocons-smoking/369613.md?page=2)