bush doctrine

Jeb Bush will be making a speech on foreign policy today, and if the excerpts that his campaign released to reporters beforehand
Unlike the neocons that ran Bush's failed foreign policy, President Obama is not going to be rushed into another ground war. He believes he needs a strong coalition, including Arab countries, and a more inclusive Iraqi government, to ensure a broader and more enduring solution.
After 4,804 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and 2,340 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan, one million U.S. soldiers wounded in both wars, and a potential cost of up to $6 trillion, the last thing Americans need to see is video of fanatics executing civilians in Iraq.
Candidate Obama hated the "Bush Doctrine" and took advantage of every opportunity to criticize it. President Obama is finding it much easier to be critical of such an approach from outside the White House.
Ten years later, was the Iraq War worth it? Did the U.S. achieve its goals? Is Iraq a more democratic country? Are the Iraqi people better off than they were under Saddam Hussein? Was it worth the cost? And most important, was it worth the American and Iraqi lives lost? You decide.
The lesson of Vietnam is not that the United States should never go to war. It's that war is a last resort to be used only when there's a damn good reason and peaceful options have been exhausted.
Certain features of his past are being grossly exaggerated in order to cloak the real anxieties of Hagel's critics -- namely, the fear that Hagel is not a proponent of the Bush Doctrine.
If Obama wins, it will be seen as a referendum on his Bush-like wars and power grabs, granting them permanent bipartisan entrenchment. If he loses, it will be perceived as a vindication of Romney's bellicose rhetoric and a victory for the neocons. The War Party wins regardless.
However one might feel about the Clinton presidency as a whole, one salient fact highlights his two four year terms in office -- namely that he never sent massive contingents of ground troops to deal with a perceived foreign threat.
Why are Republicans turning against the Bush Doctrine? Partisanship has something to do with it. Afghanistan has become Obama's war. But there's something going on here besides political expediency.
If the Obama presidency stands for anything, it is that an ideological or doctrinaire approach to difficult problems, whether internationally or domestically, will not work.
Has Barack Obama become George W. Bush on foreign policy? If the President doesn't catch a break on Libya, he may well be on a glide path to regime change.
That the Obama Doctrine and the foreign policy that the president has been pursuing are closer in terms of substance and approach to those advanced by Bush I and Clinton may sound like very good news.
During World War II, American productivity saved freedom for the world. But in the current era, Obama's economic policies will choke American innovation, and thus the power we project abroad.
WEST POINT, N.Y. (AP) --The U.S. must shape a world order as reliant on the force of diplomacy as on the might of its military
What countries should America invade in the future? How should we wage war and govern them after a swift victory? Let us apply the lesson we learned from the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why don't we call Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney stupid? We don't make those charges against those people, because as much as we might not agree with them or like them, we know that they are not dullards.
The Republicans' strategy of slowing down change couldn't be more evident than in the perpetually extending health care debate. But they have been successful at promulgating the idea that they, too, are touting change.
John Bolton told Jon Stewart he wanted America to be the only nation with nuclear weapons. Stewart is the comedian, but this policy is the joke.