Once upon a time, National Defense meant exactly that. Over the years it became more and more twisted from that until it reached the apex of misrepresentation under America’s ChickenHawk in Chief, GW Bush. Under the Bush Doctrine, National Defense embodied the notion of preemptive war to secure our nation through spreading democracy. I summarize the Bush Doctrine as “Shoot Now; Aim Later!” Recent events in the middle east demonstrate that the Bush Doctrine has failed.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."
– George W. Bush, January 2004
Imagine yourself a juror in a trial. It is the time for closing statements from both sides. On the one side is a lawyer arguing for democracy imposed by military invention, and on the other a lawyer advocating for uprising and revolution among the common people. As an American, which would you most likely identify and side with?
Imagine what would be happening today in Iraq had George W. Bush not invaded it? The spontaneous uprisings in various countries of the Middle East are demanding, without American assistance, an end to the autocratic regimes that have ruled these lands for decades. Is there any doubt that much the same would be happening in Iraq as well? America has no control over these events and does not know how they will ultimately unfold. One can speculate over the causes. There is the gap between the wealthy and poor, ever greater with globalization. A yearning for personal freedom among the youth. The plea of the middle classes against a calcified, ensconced rapacious oligarchy. Time will tell. But there is one thing that is obvious: these uprisings were not caused by American military intervention.
The recent events in the Middle East are an international rebuke of the central thesis of the Bush Doctrine. That doctrine holds that only democracy makes nation states safe and stable. Therefore, for America to be safe, the Middle East needs democracy, by force if necessary. And so from that, proceeded the necessity to invade Iraq, destroy its government, and reorganize its society so that it will be more amenable to American security needs. But this project didn’t go quite as planned.
With Hussein, as now with Mubarak, there was a dictator in power who ruled by intimidation, violence, and villainy. There were always rumblings of revolt, but as in all dictatorships they were quickly suppressed with secret police, paramilitaries, and American-supplied weapons. In both cases, regimes with a long history of oppression rewarded their friends and punished their enemies. Back before the first Gulf War, both Hussein and Mubarak were a part of the American fold of friendly dictators, their regimes openly supported by American munitions and money. When the Project for a New American Century found a powerful ally in President Bush, they made it their business to end this state of affairs, by force, beginning with Iraq.
Instead of being greeted as liberators, we were greeted as invaders. Long-simmering sectarian tensions caused a bloody civil war. Civil institutions collapsed completely. Law and order disappeared. Millions became refugees. A trillion dollars borrowed, spent, and never repaid. And many, many, of our finest citizens cut down in their prime. All to build up a democracy that chose our worst enemy as its closest ally. This is the final verdict the Bush Doctrine of democracy by gunpoint: a fragile, weak state propped up by a coalition of gangsters and theocrats. This is not what America should stand for… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
In 2002, the Taliban proposed that they take part in the so-called democracy being formed by the Republicans’ puppet, Hamid Karzai. They agreed to return to Afghanistan, disarm, sever all ties to Al Qaeda, and field candidates just like any other Afghanis. Bush and Karzai refused. Why? The other thing about the Bush Doctrine and Republican foreign policy is that when they say “democracy” in a 2nd or 3rd world country, they mean a puppet government who will do what they are told. The last thing Bush and the Republicans wanted in Afghanistan is a real democracy.
As I write, I am listening to Barack Obama speaking about the need to reduce the deficit. The place to start is to end the war of conquest in Afghanistan, begun under the Bush Doctrine.
15 Responses to “The Failure of the Bush Doctrine”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As I write, I am listening to Barack Obama speaking about the need to reduce the deficit. The place to start is to end the war of conquest in Afghanistan, begun under the Bush Doctrine.
As conservatives fume about the deficit and government spending, they seem to forget that the fiscal black holes in Iraq and Afghanistan played a significant part in CREATING the government’s money problems.
Exactly. War is one of the easiest ways for Republicans to redistribute wealth.
The Defense Department is the single largest government expense. It seems logical that the Defense Department is the place to begin cutting the budget.
That makes good sense to me, Jerry.
Is your argument that preemptive war is never an acceptable alternative? That we must wait to be attacked, even though steps could be taken in advance that protect our national interests? I’m not asking what you think of Bush (that’s crystal clear), but what you think of a preemptive doctrine. Is it always wrong?
IMO – no, it is not always wrong. But Bush sure as hell was!
The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines “Preventive War” as: “A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.” The same source defines “Preemptive Attack” as: “An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.”
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf
But the “Bush Preemptive War Doctrine” runs counter to the Nuclear Deterrence and Containment policies that President Truman first adopted in and then modified by President Eisenhower, and have been the guiding source since. And Bush’s War Doctrine most assuredly did NOT justify our going to war against Iraq.
Like Nameless said, not always. As a rule it’s a bad idea. War should always be the last resort. But the way preemptive war was practiced when Bush and the Republicans were in power was to lie to the American people that the United States was under eminent threat when it was not and start a war for oil and conquest.
I could see where the Bush Doctrine could be used – if we had concrete evidence to support that we were going to be attacked [which we didn’t have in Iraq], then I would support this. Other than that, and especially where the evidence was made to fit the crime and it wasn’t clear that Saddam would use those weapons on us [a more likely target would have been Iran], I would support it, but only under those conditions and rock solid evidence.
Someone [I think it was the Chinese] said that they would never attack America, because besides all our defense weaponry, every citizen owned a gun. 😆 😆
Had we been tracking the Japanese fleet toward Pearl Harbor, for instance.
So, Bush didn’t lie. Yes, the administration was wrong about weapons of mass destruction, but that’s not the same as lying. Based on the information available, Bush believed WMDs were there. Our allies confirmed the same intelligence, and a lot of Democrats (including the Clintons) agreed that Iraq was a threat due to their WMD programs.
And don’t forget, there was no “rush to war.” Every diplomatic channel was utilized and it took more than a year after new sanctions through the U.N. before we went to war. Iraq was in violation of 14 U.N. resolutions at the time of the war.
You make it sound so clear cut, and Bush is such the villain, that you can’t even give him the benefit of the doubt.
Again, the facts contradict your position. Most of the evidence that was used to convince other allies and Democrats in Congress was either contrived or evoked under torture. The proof that Bush was lying comes in the Downing Street Memo, revealing that when British intelligence did NOT confirm the policy making Blair question whether or not he would support Bush, he was informed by the Bush administration that they were “fixing the intelligence around the policy.”
We had gotten along just fine with never having waged “pre-emptive war” for more than 200 years before the neocon Bush crowd came along and started the first one. If we adopt that policy for good, we will ALWAYS be at war with someone. Nervous Nelly conservatives simply need to get a grip on reality, curb their over the top paranoia, and return to a policy where war is the absolute last resort! Period!
Jack, I think that the reason for that is that the only times we have actually been in imminent danger of attack, the powers that be either did not know it or chose to ignore it.
TC, you forgot spreading democracy “by means of a gun and I want my hands on their oil” [See, the article got it right. 😀 ] I see the Bush Doctrine as “shoot now, figure out how to cover it up later.” Oh, and it failed the minute it was put in place; you can’t make people have democracy; like Egypt, they have to want it. You’re slipping, TC; very disappointing. 😛
300 killed in Egypt vs 4500 US soldiers killed in Iraq -plus an unknown number of “civilian causalities” killed. Yeah, I think their way is much better.
I agree wholeheartedly with your ending though – so very true – and some Americas and a lot of Iraqs paid the ultimate price with their lives. 😡 And now it’s the Afghani’s turn – God help them.