The Bush Doctrine

In his State of the Union address, President Bush continued to assure the masses that everything is great in Iraq. He also insists that we "move on" from a discussion of his reasons for waging war against Iraq and the innocent civilians of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to a discussion of how we look to the future to rebuild the nation and constitute a democratic political system in that country.

He pointed to the recent Iraqi elections as the high-water mark for the "march of freedom," implying that democratic elections justify the destruction, violence and turmoil that has ensued from the Bush doctrine of America's God-given right to attack and destroy non-cooperative countries that stand in the way of American policies and ambitions.

While some may consider an examination of the rationales provided for the War in Iraq (not to be confused with the War on Terror) unproductive, an analysis of the fruits of this policy is germane. What is the state of affairs in Iraq after the last election? The country is slipping even more rapidly into civil war. As of this week, American troops are again engaged in firefights with Muqtada al Sadr's Shiite militia as animosity among Shiites toward the Americans and Sunnis increases along with the threat to their power represented by the growing representation of Sunnis in the political process. In the city of Kirkuk, one of the few areas of relative calm in the country, violence between ethnic Kurds, Turkomans and Arabs has increased dramatically. And, of course, Iran waits with increasing relish for the Shiite majority to take hold of the "still-not-formed" government so that it may increase its influence over its former enemy.

As we look toward the future of American interests in the Middle East, we must ask ourselves the campaign question"Are we better off than we were four years ago before the implementation of the Bush doctrine?" Are we more protected from terrorist attacks? Is our military stronger? Have American interests in the region (political stability, oil supply) been advanced? The answer to each of this questions is a resounding "NO." We have produced a failed state in Iraq that moves closer to Iran with each election. Rival factions wage an escalating, underground civil war while Iraqi citizens live a life of violence, terror, deprivation and hopelessness. Pentagon consultants have reported that our military is "broken" and we are unable to meet recruitment goals. The price of oil has more than doubled and Iraq seems incapable of increasing production. Feeling threatened with the American army at its border, Iran has stepped up its attempts to become a nuclear power and increased its belligerent rhetoric.

Meanwhile, Bush hints that he may implement Phase III of the Bush doctrine with an attack on Iraq. What untold chaos will such an action unleash?

Our country needs to face the fact that we do not enjoy a God-given right to run the world and that our interests must be protected according to a rational plan that accurately assesses a situation in a part of the world that is totally foreign to us. Documents prepared by Feith and Wolfowitz in the runup to the war belied a total lack of understanding of the political and cultural situation in Iraq. A faith-based foreign policy is no more effective than a faith-based science curriculum.

I agree with Bush that we can not change history and we must deal with the situation in Iraq as it now presents itself. However, as we look toward the future, it is necessarry for us to carefully evaluate the situation there and learn from our mistakes. The Bush doctrine, which justifies unilateral acts of aggression against countries that have not attacked us in order to impose a democratic form of government or preempt a perceived threat, is detrimental at best and suicidal at worst.

(For a discussion of the more pragmatic aspects of our future in Iraq, see the "Victory Strategy" entry below.)