Blog readers (this one specifically and readers of blogs more broadly) have probably noticed FP's slew of new weblogs. (There are many – read the full list here). One, Shadow Government, features a group of conservative thinkers, and their collective bios are full of phrases like “the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign” and “the 200something National Security Council”. Philip Zelikow posted at the end of last week and over the weekend on the successes of the Bush administration as well as the failures; his insights are, at least for the most part, candid and informative and make for interesting reading, though you may not find them necessarily convincing. I found his points about the way that rhetoric and strategy has changed with regard to the way the US approaches nascent threats in the so-called war on terror illuminating. He argues that the Bush years nudged attitudes in the direction of pre-empting dangerous situations by addressing problem areas (e.g. Afghanistan under the Taliban) before they become disastrous. I would agree that generally, that seems to be the case; he offers pretty persuasive evidence in this bit:
In the initial debate over “preemption,” thesis met antithesis, but — despite the disastrous failures in the war against Iraq that was launched in 2003 — a constructive synthesis has emerged. As the dust settles, the bar has clearly moved forward, against terrorist safe havens and against proliferators. The international burden of proof has clearly moved against would-be proliferators, as is evident from the UNSC resolutions passed against both Iran and North Korea (there is no precedent for counter-proliferation resolutions of this kind being passed under chapter 7 of the Charter).
And consider this statement:
“This century's threats are at least as dangerous and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past….[detailing terrorist and rogue state dangers]…I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.”
George W. Bush? No. It's none other than President-elect Barack Obama, from his carefully considered policy manifesto during the 2008 campaign.
However, it's important not to decontextualize an idea like “preemption”. An attitude of “preemption” can lead to more humanitarian aid and a proactive approach in places like Afghanistan, which in principle seems difficult to contest. I also don't have trouble following this preemption argument to justify practices like monitoring the Arab-American and Muslim-American communities, and wiretapping the phones of terrorist suspects. Those practices might be more objectionable in principle; they have definitely been objectionable in practice in the recent past. And, while failed state Somalia continues to be, um, troublesome, evidence that the preemption idea has taken root with respect to things like surveillance is abundant.
Nonetheless, Zelikow's point stands: preemption as an attitude gained credibility during the Bush years, and we can expect to see that reflected in Obama's approach to foreign policy and national security. It remains to be seen how he navigates the high potential in a doctrine like that for both constructive and problematic developments.
