http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p09s01-coop.html

Max Boot's column comparing the foreign policies of Truman and Bush misses the real questions: "Was Truman successful in his prosecution of the Cold War?" And "Are there any lessons Bush could learn from Truman's approach?" Answering those two questions would be helpful, whereas comparing the multilateral nature of their respective foreign policies really reads as lame rationalization for Bush's approach: "See... I'm no worse than Truman, and people liked him."

Some think that Truman's approach to the Cold War (i.e. high military preparedness, strict containment, and active confrontation) would have bankrupted the country and/or started a general war had it continued under Eisenhower. Truman's approach was inflexible, doctrinaire, and costly. Defense spending under Truman approached 20% of GNP. It led America into armed conflicts, like in Korea, where our national interest was not directly involved. Truman treated the Cold War primarily as a military confrontation.

By contrast, Eisenhower's belief was that America would win the ideological confrontation by being free, open, and prosperous... thus undercutting Communist claims about the exploitative nature of capitalism. If belief in Communism died out, Eisenhower reasoned, there would be no need for military confrontation.

It seems that Bush's military approach to the so-called War on Terror is very much like Truman's approach to the Cold War: it too is inflexible, doctrinaire, and costly. Is the War on Terror a military or ideological confrontation? Bush treats it like a military one. Perhaps it's time to take a lesson from Eisenhower.