The Bush Doctrine

Recently, former (Democratic) Presidents Carter and Clinton openly criticized current President Bush’s determination to go to war with Iraq. In turn, the former presidents have been criticized for being critical of a sitting president. The argument, it is considered poor etiquette for a former president to be critical of a sitting president. There is an unwritten rule among living presidents, “Thou shalt not criticize the policies of your brethren.”

However, such criticism is not out of line by the former presidents because the current president is rebutting the foreign policy doctrine of his predecessors – the Gulf of Tolkin Resolution notwithstanding.

The Bush Doctrine, as it will be known, is to preemptively attack another nation considered a threat to the security of United States. The United States will no longer wait for another nation to attack first. If the possibility of an attack from a foreign nation exists, then the U.S. military will attack first. Iraq will be the test case of this new foreign policy doctrine.

President Bush appears to have decided on a course of action, but has had a difficult time convincing traditional American allies to launch an attack on Iraq. It was easier to build a coalition for Desert Storm because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the other Arab nations considered Saddam Hussein a threat to their alleged sovereignty. However, at his most recent press conference, the President assured the media he is prepared to invade Iraq alone, without support, if necessary.

The President’s case for war with Iraq is based on the following logic: Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Why is he an evil man? Because Saddam Hussein threatens the security of the United States. Why does he threaten the security of the United States? Because Saddam Hussein is an evil man. President Bush has been promoting a war with Iraq based on circular reasoning. It is message constantly repeated, but not supported by cold hard facts.

Compare the impending war with Iraq with the Cuban Missile Crisis during Kennedy presidency. During a televised speech to the American audience, President Kennedy presented proof the Soviet Union was building missile bases in Cuba. Missile bases in Cuba posed a serious threat to the national security to the United States. The nation supported President Kennedy’s naval blockade of Cuba.

However, the case against Saddam Hussein is anecdotal. “Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.

“Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists.

“I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries (Actually only Kuwait, the war with Iran was a draw) in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”

The solution is to invade Iraq, by force change regimes, destroy all offensive weapons in Iraq’s arsenal, and occupy the country until democratic institutions are ready to thrive.

The impending war with Iraq has not received broad based approval because the President has not – to borrow a legal phrase – proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq is a clear and present threat to the United States. Although, the President does argue Iraq will be a future threat to the United States, and Hussein must be stopped now. Or to make an historical analogy, we should have stopped Hitler in 1934 or 1935, and not waited until WWII to fight him.

President Bush has used Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaida in the same sentence, probably hoping that if he talks about all three together often enough, Americans will see a connection. For example, during the most recent news conference, the president claimed, “[Saddam Hussein] has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”

However, to make a convincing argument that Saddam Hussein is directly involved with the four hijackings and the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration will have to present cold hard facts: The dates, times, and locations of any meetings held between Saddam Hussein’s government and Bin Laden’s lieutenants.

In addition, either the United Nations weapons inspectors, or US Intelligence operatives will have to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Finally, the President must disclose whether Iraq has an active nuclear program, and a missile delivery system that could threaten the United States. During the press conference, President Bush claimed, “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.” From reading this statement, I would conclude Saddam Hussein currently possess a missile delivery system that could reach Europe, Japan or the United States. But the Bush Administration has not produced any facts to lead to that conclusion.

It should not be difficult to detect whether Iraq has an active nuclear program. Recent satellite surveillance has detected activity in North Korea. North Korea has activated nuclear reactors. Iraq has not.

Without proof, the President’s actions in Iraq will simply appear to be American Imperialism reasserting itself after 9/11.

To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, what kind of peace does President Bush want? What type of peace does he seek? A Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war. Not a peace in our time, but a peace on his terms.

President Bush has turned traditional American foreign policy upside down, and we, the people, may suffer the consequences.

Sadly, 9/11/01 could be remembered as the day American imperialism was reborn.

REPRINTED MARCH/2003