Understanding the Bush Doctrine

[conjur]

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20041002.htm

Perhaps the most threatening document of our time is the U.S. National Security Strategy of September 2002. Its implementation in Iraq has already taken countless lives and shaken the international system to the core.

In the fallout from the war on terror is a revived Cold War, with more nuclear players than ever, across even more dry-tinder landscapes around the world.

As Colin Powell explained, the NSS declared that Washington has a "sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves" from nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq.

The obvious reason for invading Iraq is still conspicuously evaded: establishing the first secure US military bases in a client state at the heart of the world?s major energy resources.

As old pretexts collapsed, President Bush and his colleagues adaptively revised the doctrine of the NSS to enable them to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or programmes to develop them. The "intent and ability" to do so is sufficient.

Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to attack.

In September 2003, Bush assured Americans that "the world is safer today because our coalition ended an Iraqi regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction." The president?s handlers know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough.

The war in Iraq incited terror worldwide. In November 2003, Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it "simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11." Iraq itself became a "terrorist haven" for the first time, and suffered its first suicide attacks since the 13th century CK assassins.

Recruitment for Al Qaeda networks has risen. "Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden," who "is winning," writes British journalist Jason Burke in Al-Qaida, his 2003 study of this loose array of radical Islamists, now mostly independent.

For them, bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol. He may be even more dangerous after he is killed, becoming a martyr who will inspire others to join his cause. Burke sees the creation of "a whole new cadre of terrorists," enlisted in what they see as a "cosmic struggle between good and evil," a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush.

The proper reaction to terrorism is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves, and at the reservoir of potential support. The terrorists see themselves as a vanguard, seeking to mobilise others. Police work, an appropriate response, has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency that the terrorists seek to reach, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause.

We can help the terrorist vanguard mobilise this reservoir of support, by violence. Or we can address the "myriad grievances," many legitimate, that are "the root causes of modern Islamic militancy," Burke writes.

That basic effort can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal.

Violent actions provoke reactions that risk catastrophe. US analysts estimate that Russian military expenditures have tripled during the Bush-Putin years, in large measure a predicted response to Bush administration bellicosity. On both sides, nuclear warheads remain on hair-trigger alert. The Russian control systems, however, have deteriorated. The dangers ratchet up with the threat and use of force.

As anticipated, US military plans have provoked a Chinese reaction as well. China has announced plans to "transform its military into a technology-driven force capable of projecting power globally by 2010," Boston Globe correspondent Jehangir Pocha reported last month, "replacing its land-based nuclear arsenal of about 20 1970s-era intercontinental ballistic missiles with 60 new multiple-warhead missiles capable of reaching the United States."

China?s actions are likely to touch off a ripple effect through India, Pakistan and beyond. Nuclear developments in Iran and North Korea, also in part at least a response to US threats, are exceedingly ominous. The unthinkable becomes thinkable.

In 2003, at the UN General Assembly, the United States voted alone against implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and alone with its new ally India against steps toward the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The United States also voted alone against "observance of environmental norms" in disarmament and arms control agreements, and alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- the pretext for invading Iraq. Presidents commonly have "doctrines," but Bush II is the first to have "visions" as well, possibly because his handlers recall the criticism of his father as lacking "the vision thing."

The most exalted of these, conjured up after all pretexts for invasion of Iraq had to be abandoned, was the vision of bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. By November 2003, this vision was taken to be the real motive for the war.

The evidence for faith in the vision consists of little more than declarations of virtuous intent. To take the declarations seriously, we would have to assume that our leaders are accomplished liars: While mobilising their countries for war, they were declaring that the reasons were entirely different. Mere sanity dictates scepticism about what they produce to replace pretexts that have collapsed.

Given Bush's rhetoric from his speech today about "freedom must be chosen" and "We will never force our own version of democracy on those who want it." and with Cheney's remarks seeming to spur on Israel to take military action against Iran (when we've already sent in commando squads to do the intel for us - or for Israel), it doesn't take much to see the Bush administration has a plan for world dominance of democracy by force. However, the recent EU deal to sell arms to China might lead to something worse.

 

[slyedog]

just more lying bullshit from the lib,s. going to bed happy and looking forward to the next four years. nite

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: slyedog
just more lying bullshit from the lib,s. going to bed happy and looking forward to the next four years. nite

Here, have a goodnight to help you dream. Or would you like Pretzels like your daddy?

 

[Engineer]

Bush vows to end tyranny

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush (news - web sites) embarked on his second term Thursday, telling a world anxious about war and terrorism that the United States would not shrink from new confrontations across the globe with "the great objective of ending tyranny."



Four minutes before noon, Bush placed his left hand on a family Bible and recited 39 tradition-hallowed words that every president since George Washington has uttered.


With 150,000 American troops deployed in Iraq (news - web sites) at a cost of $1 billion a week and more than 1,360 killed, Bush also beseeched Americans for patience.


"Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon," the president declared in the first wartime inauguration in more than three decades.


Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80 years old and frail with thyroid cancer, administered the oath in his first public appearance in three months ? a gesture Bush called "incredibly moving." Rehnquist's ill health may give Bush a second-term opportunity to nominate the Supreme Court's first new justice in nearly 11 years.


It was the first inauguration since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the capital was enveloped in a security blanket of thousands of police and miles of metal barricades. Snipers lined rooftops, while bomb-sniffing dogs toiled down below.


Bush spoke before a shivering throng at the West Front of the Capitol, the monuments of American government ? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln ? stretched before him on a snowy landscape. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), who had battled Bush for the presidency, watched along with other lawmakers.


The nation's 55th inauguration celebration stretched from a 40-minute morning prayer service at St. John's Church to late-night revelry at nine fancy balls. The festivities were financed by $40 million in private donations and tens of millions in related costs.


Bush rode in an armored limousine, behind police on motorcycles in a V formation, to lead the inaugural parade 1.7 miles down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House. The license plate read: USA 1.


Hundreds of anti-war protesters, some carrying coffin-like cardboard boxes to signify the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq, stood along the parade route. They jeered and shook their fists as Bush rode past. "Worst president ever, impeachbush.org" one sign said. Another read: "Guilty of war crimes."


Rows of law enforcement officers stood between the protesters and the parade, and Bush's motorcade sped up as it passed the demonstration area. The president and his wife, Laura, got out of the car to walk the last two blocks to the White House.


Democrats attended the inauguration but didn't hide their unhappiness.


"Personally, I don't feel much like celebrating," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "So I'm going to mark the occasion by pledging to do everything in my power to fight the extremist Republican's destructive agenda."


Entering his second term with one of the lowest approval ratings of any recent two-term president, Bush was unapologetic in his speech about the course he had set over four tumultuous years.


He challenged critics of his quest to spread democracy across the Middle East, saying that now "is an odd time for doubt." And he voiced eagerness to confront oppressive rule around the globe in the name of spreading freedom.


"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore oppression or excuse your oppressors," Bush said. "When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."


The United States' policy is to promote democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he said.





"This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force when necessary," the president said.

The spread of freedom and liberty are the oldest ideals of America, Bush said. "Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time."

After the inauguration, Bush joined congressional leaders and other dignitaries at a Capitol luncheon of scalloped crab and lobster and roasted quail.

"I'm looking forward to putting my heart and soul into this job for four more years," he said, making no mention of the legislative battles ahead over taxes, expanding immigration laws, Social Security (news - web sites), the burgeoning budget deficit, judges and more.

"We're ready to go to work," replied Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., chairman of the congressional inaugural committee.

Eager to begin, the GOP-controlled Senate convened at mid-afternoon and confirmed Mike Johanns as secretary of agriculture, the first of Bush's nine new second-term Cabinet officers to win approval.

White House chief of staff Andy Card accused Democrats of "petty politics" for blocking the swift confirmation of Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) as secretary of state.

With his oath, Bush began a new chapter in a presidency transformed by the 2001, terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. What was an unremarkable presidency to that point, preoccupied by tax cuts and education initiatives, found its purpose.

A president who had come to power in a disputed election and had battled low expectations became a symbol of confidence and resolve in the war against terrorism.

But Bush also angered many allies with what was perceived as an arrogant approach to foreign policy and an unwarranted war in Iraq, based on the erroneous belief that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was haboring weapons of mass destruction.

The president did not mention Iraq in his inaugural address, but he said the United States had helped tens of millions of people ? in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq ? achieve freedom.

He said U.S. efforts have lit "a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."

Does this nutcase actually think Congress will actually go for another war? They're up for re-election and he's not and the people are tired of the Fvcking Iraq war, much less another one from this prick. His arrogance has no end, but thank God that his term in office is only for 4 more years (or less if we're lucky).

 

[raildogg]

Congrats, Mr. President on 4 more years :thumbsup:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: raildogg
Congrats, Mr. President on 4 more attempted wars :thumbsup:

Corrected for you (and Bush's neocon friends).

 

[GrGr]

Engineer, Congress does not matter anymore. They have already handed the President the Warpowers. All Bush has to do is point at the map and declare this or that nation an essential target in the War on Terror and order the military to attack.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: slyedog
just more lying bullshit from the lib,s. going to bed happy and looking forward to the next four years. nite

Wow! What an amazing and well-constructed reply.




NOT!


Chomsky was dead-on in that article.

 

[lozina]

Chomsky has always written well thought out articles and this one is no different

This is a funny fact the article points out:

The United States also voted ... alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- the pretext for invading Iraq.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: lozina
Chomsky has always written well thought out articles and this one is no different

This is a funny fact the article points out:

The United States also voted ... alone with Israel and Micronesia against steps to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- the pretext for invading Iraq.

What?? You mean to imply the US wanted this war? Say it ain't so!