given escalating tensions with russia, was the "bush doctrine" actually valid?

[reveler]

simple premise:

bush and his cabinet were derided as being stuck in the past. rice, rumsfeld, cheney all had cold war hardons. instead of worrying about intel and informant networks, and the choice to disband iraqi army, they were counting guns, tanks, planes, missles, etc. as sure measures for US military supremacy, while losing to insurgents armed with 30+ year old soviet surplus.

10 years later, in light of russian aggression, are we being reminded that the cold war, in fact, is not over, and that more traditional measures of military supremacy are in fact still legitimate? is it possible that tensions with russia are being exaggerated (perhaps mutually) to justify more traditional defense spending after 8 years of budget droning?

 

[LatFlare]

They want the Soviet Union back, but nato expansionism welcomes former Soviet states.. what happens next?

 

[hiphopnazi]

I think the US military expansion across the globe which is surrounding Russia is what is causing some/most of the tensions. Would it be terrible for the two countries to have a working relationship? I guess the US government wants to stay at top in military power.

The media, if they can be called that anymore is playing a vital role in producing fears in this aspect.

 

[VivaRevolution]

simple premise:

bush and his cabinet were derided as being stuck in the past. rice, rumsfeld, cheney all had cold war hardons. instead of worrying about intel and informant networks, and the choice to disband iraqi army, they were counting guns, tanks, planes, missles, etc. as sure measures for US military supremacy, while losing to insurgents armed with 30+ year old soviet surplus.

10 years later, in light of russian aggression, are we being reminded that the cold war, in fact, is not over, and that more traditional measures of military supremacy are in fact still legitimate? is it possible that tensions with russia are being exaggerated (perhaps mutually) to justify more traditional defense spending after 8 years of budget droning?

Bush was, and is, with her.

Or should I say the she is with Bush and Cheney.

I love how all the anti-Russia rhetoric really just shows who is dumb enough to support both Bush and Clinton.

 

[Rod1]

No, i will say that the US going into Iraq and Kosovo without UNSC support was what emboldened Russia to do the same elsewhere.

 

[Fawlty]

simple premise:

bush and his cabinet were derided as being stuck in the past. rice, rumsfeld, cheney all had cold war hardons. instead of worrying about intel and informant networks, and the choice to disband iraqi army, they were counting guns, tanks, planes, missles, etc. as sure measures for US military supremacy, while losing to insurgents armed with 30+ year old soviet surplus.

10 years later, in light of russian aggression, are we being reminded that the cold war, in fact, is not over, and that more traditional measures of military supremacy are in fact still legitimate? is it possible that tensions with russia are being exaggerated (perhaps mutually) to justify more traditional defense spending after 8 years of budget droning?

I don't think the question is being asked in the best way. What you're describing is asymmetric vs more traditional warfare, and a defining characteristic of asymmetric warfare is that factors like numeric strength, tech/weapons advantage, and traditional force multipliers are made less effective by various tactics. US military supremacy (and especially nuclear supremacy) are very important and would likely decide the result of a conflict with Russia.

That doesn't really address the Bush Doctrine, and I'm not sure where you're finding a link between defense spending and the tension with Russia. I don't expect an increase in military spending, at least not a big one.