Op-Ed

David Frick
The Failures of the Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine in simplest terms is the assertion that the United States has the right to launch a preemptive strike against any nation or group deemed hostile or a threat its national security. As Bush so delicately put it, “you are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Really?

The biggest problem with the Bush Doctrine is its unilateral and illogical nature. It lacks both meaning and boundaries. Nearly any country could be deemed to violate the Bush Doctrine anytime it acts in competition with the U.S. How does a country know when it is about to threaten the U.S? When France sells military arms to Venezuela, should the U.S. invade France or Venezuela or both? When China revokes most of the political rights of citizens of Hong Kong, should the U.S. invade China? When Russia opposes letting Poland join NATO, should we invade Russia? Should the U.S. invade when the President of South Africa refuses to acknowledge HIV/AIDS as a viral disease and acts in a manner that risks the health of not just his country, but also the least stable collection of undemocratic counties in the world? When terrorists use Pakistan as a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan, should we invade Pakistan? When Saudi Arabia raises oil prices and threatens our economy and limits the political and religious freedom of its citizens, should the U.S. invade?

The clear-cut line Bush drew in the sand with the Bush Doctrine eliminates any discussion not only between the U.S. and its allies, but also between the U.S. and its enemies. Allies that might disagree only with a couple issues could potentially be treated as terrorists. The ultimate goals of peace and stability are difficult to achieve, but impossible to achieve when attempted by force. The Cold War with the Soviet Union demonstrated that there can be continued fierce disagreement on almost every issue without requiring war for the U.S. to enjoy peace and prosperity in most years.

The idea of a preemptive strike is frightening, particularly when we discover, as we have in Bosnia and Iraq, that after the first “feel good” emotional boost from killing and overthrowing a few bad guys, the resulting situation is less stable with no ability to leave. After we have deposed the autocrats, the people who fill the political vacuum are even more vicious enemies of the U.S. At this point, they define the U.S. not winning as the U.S. losing. This dangerous mentality allows the U.S. to become its own worst enemy and to fall easily into too many wars, amplifying instability throughout the world.
Before the invasion of Iraq, the Middle East, excluding Israel and Palestine, was a relatively stable region. Although Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who killed his own people, he had control of his country. Al-Qaeda was nowhere to be found. Then, the U.S. invaded Iraq using the newly-conceived and never-debated Bush Doctrine as the rationale. The occupation of Iraq has created extreme instability in the Middle East, raising anti-American sentiment, and allowing Al-Qaeda to thrive.

The cost of the war is staggering for the U.S. government which is already deeply in debt. The total cost of the war, according to CBS News this summer, was $648 billion and is running several billion dollars each month, assuming that the government is reporting all of the relevant costs. By far America’s most precious resource is its troops, but the Bush Doctrine has thrown the volunteer army into a hasty war and occupation in Iraq that has claimed the lives of over 4,171 soldiers. Is this worth it? Ask yourself; what has America gained from the invasion of Iraq?

It is interesting to note that America chose Iraq over other dangerous countries like North Korea, Iran, and Syria. North Korea is a country ruled by a dictator, Kim Jong iI, who has allowed his country to starve itself while focusing on its military and nuclear capabilities. Across the world in Africa, Zimbabwe is suffering under President Mugabe who won yet another fraudulent election for president. Clearly democracy was threatened, yet the Bush administration did little to nothing to help change these situations. Following the Bush Doctrine’s logic, North Korea, which has never been a democracy, should be invaded. Does Congress or the American public believe that we would be better off if we invaded North Korea? Of course not. Has Congress approved the Bush Doctrine or simply been forced to cope with its consequences?

Ironically, the domestic handmaiden of the Bush Doctrine is the equally ill-conceived Patriot Act. This act “protects” our democracy by picking and choosing who has which civil liberties, authorizing torture and legitimizing unwarranted levels of domestic surveillance. If another country adopted the Patriot Act, one could argue that under the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. would be at least justified and probably obligated to invade them at once!

If the purpose of the Bush Doctrine is to keep the U.S. safe from evil and spread democracy, then it should be repudiated immediately for the simple reason that it has not and will never work. Great goals do not keep rash actions from becoming folly. The enemies of the U.S. and democracy know that the Bush Doctrine can only accelerate the squandering of America power, prosperity and democracy.

Authors note- My biggest concern is that paragraph about the Patriot Act. Is it really relevant to the Bush Doctrine which was the point of the editorial. Also just wordiness and grammar issues.