First of all, you're idea certainly isn't repeating the "Bush doctrine". I'm not convinced he even HAS a doctrine of any kind for fighting terrorism, but if he did, it certainly wouldn't be attacking countries known to harbor terrorists. So far we've gone after one, spent a lot more effort on a country that WASN'T harboring them, and made "friends" with several countries that are well known for harboring terrorists to one extent or another (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are at the top of that list).
But nevermind that, on to your idea. It sounds great on the surface, and in some situations it might work. But how does one separate the situations where terrorists are simply good at hiding among a population trying to root them out and situations where the government is actually helping them? It's not as obvious as you might think, and I hate to trust that kind of doctrine to governments (ours and Israel's) that have shown a great willingness to shoot first and figure things out later. And what about the less than black and white situations? Saudi Arabia does not directly support terrorists (as far as we know), but they don't try very hard to hunt them down either. Is that enough to warrant some intensive bombing...or do we just ask them to try harder?
The problem with fighting terrorism is that everyone wants the situation to be black and white. But fighting terrorists is not analogous to fighting nation states, and no amount of creative doctrines will make it so. I think our best bet is to hunt down terrorists as individuals, and save the massive military assaults for clear cut situations of ongoing and pervasive national support (like Afghanistan). Sure, it doesn't satisfy our desire for a clean solution, but I think it has the best chance of working without making the situation worse in the long run. Israel's current assault on Lebanon is a perfect example of your doctrine at work...and while it may satisfy the desire to kick some ass, it's going to come back to haunt them. Not because it won't kill terrorists, but because it will make peace far more difficult with Muslims who AREN'T terrorists.
But nevermind that, on to your idea. It sounds great on the surface, and in some situations it might work. But how does one separate the situations where terrorists are simply good at hiding among a population trying to root them out and situations where the government is actually helping them? It's not as obvious as you might think, and I hate to trust that kind of doctrine to governments (ours and Israel's) that have shown a great willingness to shoot first and figure things out later. And what about the less than black and white situations? Saudi Arabia does not directly support terrorists (as far as we know), but they don't try very hard to hunt them down either. Is that enough to warrant some intensive bombing...or do we just ask them to try harder?
The problem with fighting terrorism is that everyone wants the situation to be black and white. But fighting terrorists is not analogous to fighting nation states, and no amount of creative doctrines will make it so. I think our best bet is to hunt down terrorists as individuals, and save the massive military assaults for clear cut situations of ongoing and pervasive national support (like Afghanistan). Sure, it doesn't satisfy our desire for a clean solution, but I think it has the best chance of working without making the situation worse in the long run. Israel's current assault on Lebanon is a perfect example of your doctrine at work...and while it may satisfy the desire to kick some ass, it's going to come back to haunt them. Not because it won't kill terrorists, but because it will make peace far more difficult with Muslims who AREN'T terrorists.
