President Barack Obama chose to intervene in Libya without a commitment or even plan for stabilizing the country. In the end, on his watch, Syria became the greatest humanitarian crisis in modern times, triggering a refugee crisis that pushed the European Union into a political crisis.
Obama chose to abandon a decades-long bipartisan goal of keeping the Russians from playing the pivotal role as holder of the balance of power in Middle East geopolitics.
Obama chose not to provide Ukraine with lethal military aid when Putin violated the greatest post-Cold War achievement: the rejection of forceful redrawing of borders in Europe. And finally, Obama chose not to respond decisively when Russia tried to hijack the elections. Of course, we know that all of these Obama choices were tough calls involving difficult tradeoffs on either side.
And, of greatest significance for our purposes here, we know these Obama choices, even if sincerely made for understandable reasons, had profound consequences that contributed significantly to the phenomenon that Zakaria describes: the erosion of American power and credibility, and the undercutting of the international order. Security Council authorization in We could extend this list considerably, but the point is obvious.
Zakaria is right that a combination of structural factors and American policy choices have combined to put considerable strain on the international order. He is wrong to pretend that the only consequential policy choices were those that can be blamed on President Bush.
For that matter, if one turns from historical critique to policy advice for the current administration, we suspect that Zakaria might agree with the following list of to-do items: make the case to the GOP base for international leadership and engagement; build an international coalition and multilateral institutions to confront global security threats like terrorism arising from militant Islamism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction; rebuild the military in size, morale, and lethality; expand the global circle of economic development and prosperity; deepen existing relations with allies, and bringing new partners aboard; and preserve a stable balance of power in Asia while promoting political reform and human rights in China.
If the Trump administration pursued those policy lines of action today, it would go some distance to repairing the damage the international order sustained over the last decade. This is, in sum, not the record of a presidency that destroyed U. In so doing, Bush updated the policies and institutions undergirding American power for the unprecedented challenges of the 21 st century, positioning his successors with sufficient freedom of maneuver to make consequential choices of their own.
Bush administration and the Clinton administration. Chair at the William P. Clements, Jr. Anthony Fauci, the leader of the current crisis response, who was then and still is now the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. If allowed to smolder, undetected, it can grow to an inferno that can spread quickly beyond our ability to control it. The president recognized that an outbreak was a different kind of disaster than the ones the federal government had been designed to address.
His cabinet secretaries urged their staffs to take preparations seriously. The government launched a website, www. But as time passed, it became increasingly difficult to justify the continued funding, staffing and attention, Bossert said. You need to have institutions that can survive any one administration.
And you need to have leadership experience," Bossert said. Bush declined, through a spokesman, to comment on the unfolding crisis or discuss the current response. But his remarks from 15 years ago still resonate. And one day many lives could be needlessly lost because we failed to act today. We'll notify you here with news about. Hear her message for Biden. Legal analyst reacts to judge rejecting Trump's attempt to withhold documents.
Trump raising millions despite no official announcement. Economist breaks down Biden's Build Back Better plan. January 6 committee wants to talk to at least 5 members of Pence's inner circle. Video shows police getting punched during Capitol riot. Liz Cheney hits back at Trump over insurrection claim. Analysis: How Trump has emboldened autocrats around the world. The comments by the 43rd President -- who has recently critiqued the modern GOP with a candor that has been unusual for him in retirement -- speak to a rift in the party that has one side urging a doubling-down on former President Donald Trump's brand of nativist politics and another that wants to return to the more traditional GOP that Bush once led.
Bush made the remark in a podcast interview with The Dispatch last week in response to a question about members of the Republican Party who planned to start a caucus pushing for "Anglo-Saxon political tradition" and Republicans who peddled the falsehood that the election was stolen.
Bush, who said he does not believe the election was stolen, told The Dispatch that while he believes Republicans will eventually govern again, "if the Republican Party stands for exclusivity -- you know, it used to be country clubs, now evidently it's White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism -- then it's not going to win anything.
0コメント