Continuity we can believe in
Two writers today make observations about Obama’s security team that underpin the point I made here: that those who think these appointments represent a lurch to the centre never grasped that President Bush’s own foreign policy lurched in this direction some time ago. In the Times, Bronwen Maddox notes of the so-called ‘hawks’:
What they seem to represent is a continuation of the last year or so, in which President Bush adopted policies that were more conciliatory, less combative and actively sought the help of other countries...A difference in tone, then. But in policies, not a million miles from the chastened and cautious Bush Administration of the past year.
And in the New York Times, David Brooks similarly observes that one of these supposed hawks, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, has already been implementing Obama’s policy goal of, ahem, ‘rebalancing the nation’s foreign policy capacities’.
He has developed a way of talking about security and foreign policy that is now the lingua franca in government and think-tank circles. It owes a lot to the lessons of counterinsurgency and uses phrases like ‘full spectrum operations’ to describe multidisciplinary security and development campaigns.
Gates has told West Point cadets that more regime change is unlikely but that they may spend parts of their careers training soldiers in allied nations. He has called for more spending on the State Department, foreign aid and a revitalized U.S. Information Agency. He’s spawned a flow of think-tank reports on how to marry hard and soft pre-emption.
If the left wasn’t so blinded by its hatred of Bush, it would have spotted that appeasement ‘soft power’ arrived some time ago within his own administration. That’s exactly what Condi, Gates and the rest of the gang have been up to. That’s why the bad guys are winning.
It's called continuity we can believe in.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (11)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Britain’s AWOL ally - Fraser Nelson
2 A phonecall to Kelly looks better than not mentioning expenses - Peter Hoskin
3 Fatal inexperience - Humphrey Carpenter
4 The day ends on a sour note for Labour - Peter Hoskin
5 Cameron fires a broadside at ‘petty’ Brown - David Blackburn
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'Londonistan', published by Encounter and Gibson Square.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
GASCONY
GASCONY, SW France, near Condom-en-Armagnac 13th Century stone house, 21st Century luxury for 12 in 5 en-suites. 50 acres +
BIG SAND STEEL BAND
IF YOU ARE PLANNING A CHAMPAGNE RECEPTION and looking for some light entertainment, you can now hire London's busiest steel
BOSC LEBAT, Tarn et Garonne.
BOSC LEBAT, SW France. Only 45 minutes from Toulouse Airport with daily flights from most provincial airports avoiding the horrors
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2009 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
An American
December 2nd, 2008 5:25pmFor the past seven years, the liberal US media and democratic Congress put enormous pressure on Bush to go soft on our enemy.
Bush did persevere with finalizing the Iraq war but softened his stance on pushing other countries to continue to root-out and fight our mutual enemy.
I agree with Melanie that Defense Secretary Gates is not a hawk, otherwide Obama would never have chosen to continue on with him.
Condi Rice, likewise, turned into a dove. She spent most of her time trying to get Israel to give up even more...time after time. I'm surprised they continued to negotiate with her. They should have shut the door in her face. But, of course, Israel has so few friends...they need US support.
I doubt Israel will continue to have that strong support under an Obama administration.
In fact, I doubt that Americans will have strong protection under an Obama Adminstration. People can bash Bush, but he has kept us safe for the past seven years.
Sad to say, but Americans who voted for Messiah Obama have it coming.
steve
December 2nd, 2008 5:32pmThe fact that you equate soft power with appeasement demonstrates you no absolutely nothing about the concept.
An American
December 2nd, 2008 6:45pmSteve,
You must be a lot smarter than me...I can't understand what in the hell you are trying to say.
I didn't use the word appeasement...
'To yield or concede to the belligerent demands of a nation, group, person, etc.' because that's not what I believe Bush's policy was all about...I believe he softened his stance, which of course, was a bad idea on his part. But, the stresses on this president were enormous.
Wilfred
December 2nd, 2008 7:21pmAnd, Steve, anyone who spells as atrociously as you do, probably knows even less than you claim Ms Phillips does.
Conservative Cabbie
December 2nd, 2008 8:54pmSteve
I suspect Melanie might be referring to the difference between the ideal and the reality of "soft power".
Soft power lends itself to accomodation, understanding and tolerance and thus by extension appeasement. I have no desire for the west to accomodate, tolerate or understand terrorists, we should only deal with them through the business end of an M-16 or Hellfire missile.
BL, Mineapolis, MN USA
December 3rd, 2008 3:13amWow, Ms PHillips, your thoughts are amazingly accurate? Why can so few see the parallels to many decades ago? Thank YOU!
Michael B
December 3rd, 2008 3:39amDavid Brooks' language and intonations are a species rife with amusements.
Elke
December 3rd, 2008 6:37amBush's been a mother to latin america. That's why its communist protodictatorships (Chavéz, Morales, Correa, even Lula) have prospered.
fellow traveller
December 4th, 2008 12:42amLula's a communist protodictator Elke? Odd way to talk about a solidly popular centralist democratic president who is successfully creating a middle class, controlling inflation and stimulating private enterprise. But it fits the lazy South American stereotype, so why not pitch him in with the usual suspects, I suppose.
Are you patronising enough to argue that Brazilian politicians couldn't possibly do anything to help their country without George Bush organising it all for them?
Is it his beard that has confused you about his policies, or are you just tiresomely ignorant of both Brazil's politics and its economy?
Still, if there's not much sign of accomplishment elsewhere in the world, why not try and give Bush the sole credit for creating economic growth in Latin America? True desperation, wonderful stuff.
Shevvers
December 4th, 2008 7:52pmLula just continued the wise policies of his predecessor FHC, with a few token scraps thrown to the activists (Fome Zero, MST). Hence no radical change for the worse in Brazil - apart from Lula's drinking habits.
Tony
December 5th, 2008 9:26amI am trying to get my tongue around United Socialist States of America...mmm...I think Obambi would be proud of that one!
Get ready for high taxes, subsidies for the fat and lazy and the destruction of the productive sector. I know what it feels like, living in the UK.