The Hypocrisy Of The Bush Doctrine
Why is Osama Bin Laden still alive and free to make videos?
Because the "Bush Doctrine" has utterly failed.
Remember the Bush Doctrine? It had two ideological pillars to it. First, the stick: if your nation-state harbors terrorists, then the United States will consider you a terrorist nation -- and we will invade your country (pre-emptively, if need be) to remove you from power. Second, the carrot: America stands with freedom-loving and democracy-loving people everywhere in the world and we will stand with you if you have to defend your freedom and democracy from tyranny.
The Bush Doctrine, like everything the Bush White House touches, has had severe problems of competence and execution. But there's a bigger problem -- a fundamental and ideological problem -- with the Bush Doctrine. The fact is that United States has to deal with the real world, and not the fantasy world inside neo-conservatism's collective head. The Bush Doctrine is simply laughable when you point out all of America's strategic alliances which are based on Kissengerian realpolitik and not high-falutin' notions of "freedom" or "democracy."
The Bush Doctrine is indefensible when you point out the inconsistencies of our foreign policy -- some of which (in all fairness) date back decades, through administrations of both parties.
Consider Vietnam and Cuba, for instance. Both are communist states. Vietnam's government even fought (and won) a war against the United States not too long ago. So which do we trade with today? Why? Perhaps it's because one of these two countries has a huge population of ex-patriots currently living in a U.S. state that is crucial in presidential elections (see: Miami), and one does not?
Consider China and Taiwan. One is a communist state that makes cheap crap to be sold at unbelievably low prices in big box stores across America. One is a democracy that we used to recognize. Which do we have a closer relationship with today? We used to back Taiwan, but now we use our leverage on Taiwan to stop them from furthering themselves as a democracy -- down to stopping them from voting on issues like the name of their country, the design of their flag, and other incremental and largely symbolic steps away from the communist Chinese mainland. The next time you listen to some rhetorical freedom-loving by President Bush, ask yourself "But what about Taiwan?" to expose the emptiness of all that flowery language.
Consider Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism, the branch of Islam practiced by the ruling class in Saudi Arabia (in a so-called "benevolent" monarchy), is responsible for sowing much of the hatred in the Muslim world through its sponsorship of madrasas -- schools where young Muslims are taught through the use of religious texts to hate anyone not ideologically like them. Yet Saudi Arabia, who is actively fueling these jihadist fires all over the world, is our friend and ally in the Middle East. Because they've got the most oil, of course.
Consider Afghanistan. During the Taliban's reign there, we were actually paying Afghanistan millions of dollars a year because the Taliban was so efficient in wiping out opium poppies. That's right -- millions of U.S. tax dollars were paid to the Taliban for their help on the "War on Drugs." Then we declared them outlaw, invaded, and overthrew the Taliban. The result? Afghanistan is now the supplier of over 90% of the world's heroin.
More importantly, when we relied on Afghans to capture Osama Bin Laden in the Tora Bora region, they let him escape.
Finally, consider Pakistan. Osama Bin Laden is most likely hiding out in the "tribal areas" of Pakistan. In other words, he has a safe haven there. Which means, that under the Bush Doctrine, we should have declared Pakistan's government to be a terrorism supporter and invaded. Instead, we invaded Iraq -- a country that was the sworn enemy of Osama Bin Laden. This monumental fiasco is still playing out.
So why aren't we invading Pakistan now? Well, Pakistan has now tested a nuclear bomb. Even though the country is run by a man who took over in a military coup, we do not support democracy in Pakistan, preferring instead to work with Musharraf. This is because America is terrified that a true Pakistani democracy might produce exactly what we don't want -- an Islamic government with nuclear weapons at its disposal. Which is why invading the tribal areas and flushing out Bin Laden are considered beyond contemplation. So much for the ideology of the Bush Doctrine.
Now, I am not saying that realpolitik should be abandoned, and that we should use some ideological measuring stick for our dealings with all foreign nations. But then I don't have a "doctrine" named after me. I would at least like to see some of these discrepancies explained by those in power who love to use "freedom" and "democracy" so often in speeches.
I think America would be shocked if some politician stood up and said: "Well, we could bring democracy to Saudi Arabia, and we could end the financing of the teaching of hatred to the young across the Muslim world, but it's going to cost us as a society to do so. For the next ten years, it may cost $100 every time you put 10 gallons of gas in your car, but after that time period we expect a better Middle East to blossom." Or, perhaps: "We are going to officially recognize Taiwan and welcome her to the community of nations, even if it means that the flow of cheap toys and electronics from mainland China is going to stop, and even if our economy collapses when China calls in our national debt. Oh, and we may have to help Taiwan out in the upcoming war."
As you can see, Americans wouldn't stand for actually matching the soaring rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine with the real world, once they realized the true costs of doing so. Realpolitik, most would agree, has its uses after all. Compromises must be made to guarantee our standard of living and way of life here at home, after all.
I write this article on the sixth anniversary of 9/11. I write it before I have seen the evening news. I am sure there will be some soaring rhetoric on the news tonight, but I will be watching with one question on my mind:
Where's Osama Bin Laden?
[Note: While, as I said, I haven't seen the news yet, I'm glad that at least Bush hasn't stepped on the image of an American flag today to mark the 9/11 anniversary, as he did last year. But then the day's not over yet....]
[Program Note: Due to the lopsided ratio of cartoons to articles, cartoons will now run on Wednesday afternoons and Saturdays, in case you were wondering.]
-- Chris Weigant
The word doctrine has such religious connotations and when it is used to describe a policy that policy is then often taken on faith. That is why I have always found "doctrines" dangerous territory because they make it very difficult for a country to "change its course" no matter how flawed the doctrine becomes.
Very thoughtful post.
...Stan
So, let me get this straight..
The "BUSH" Doctrine was the problem in Vietnam and Cuba??
Nice bit o' time traveling you got going there... :D
One might also point out (and be just as factually correct) that Bin Laden is alive today to make videos because of the Clinton Doctrine of getting blowjobs, committing perjury, blowing up worthless aspirin factories and filing lawsuits to combat terrorism...
Regardless of all that, the doctrine is now called The Democratic Party doctrine, as they have the power to stop all the excesses...
They are just A> too afraid to use it or 2> realize that Bush is right in what he is doing..
Which is it??
Michale.....
Chris,
As you point out, it isn't "merely" the "Bush Doctrine" as you can trace this duality back through other administrations of both political parties.
Yes, the Bush Doctrine is flawed. Yes, it is hypocritical. But then, that is now what passes for "democracy" in the United States.
I don't believe it can be stressed enough that when Joe McCarthy tried to run roughshod over America during the "Red Scare", it took one journalist refusing to be cowed, and a program director willing to support him, to give Congress the "balls" to rebuke McCarthy.
Since the 1950's, it seems every administration becomes "Groundhog Day" for America; just another administration tossing out the constitution in secrecy. Only, George Bush and Dick Cheney have even stopped pretending. They, like Nixon before them, have flat issued the challenge; impeach us or stfu.
Nixon left office when the votes for impeachment were a certainty. Today, we don't even have a Congress willing to do it.
In a way, it is kind of fitting today is the anniversary of 9/11... a day when we are reminded that our government, our President, can be so totally inept, can violate law after law in America with impunity... a day when we are reminded that every source of protection American's thought they had failed them... a day when we are reminded that we waged a war of aggression and occupy a nation, just as Russia tried to do in 1979 with Afghanistan... a day, oh yeah, when our country was attacked and thousands of our citizens were killed, and the administration tried to actually block an investigation into just how that happened.
And a day we are reminded that it has been six years and there has been not ONE attack on US proper, despite a desire for such attacks by America's enemies un-paralleled in history.
Bash the Bush Administration all you want, but it is UNDENIABLE that it has kept this country free of terrorist attacks on US proper in the past six years..
"These are the facts. And they are undeniable.."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale -
Except the anthrax attack, of course. Everyone always seems to forget that one....
-CW
(responds... in the immortal words of Homer Simpson)
DUH!!!!!
>Except the anthrax attack, of course.
>Everyone always seems to forget that one….
That was so close to 9/11 as to actually be billed as part of the same attack..
However, since yer gonna be all nit-picky on me :D I will amend my statement to say that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US proper since 9/18....
ppppfffffffffffffftttttt :D hehehehehehehehe
Michale.....
@Michael Gass
For the record, the immortal word of Homer Simpson is, "DOH!!", not "DUH!!"... :D
DOH!!!!!!
Michale.....
Actually you're both wrong.
It's "D'oh!"
Hank Azaria said it was originally written into the script as "annoyed grunt," and he took a page from Hollywood of old, when actors weren't allowed to curse on screen. They'd start to say "damn" or "dammit" and then halfway through have to censor themselves. Hence: "D'oh!"
I don't know why I'm in such a nitpicky mood this week...
-CW
So, THAT's how "D'oh" came about.. Very interesting.. :D
Michale.....
Chris,
Actually... "hypocritical" is too kind... I'd call it criminal...
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/9/12/223233/009
2+2 DOES equal 4 in the "reality" based world...
"I'm going to pull another bit from the article at Crooks and Liars referencing Big Noise Films in Iraq"
Now THERE is an objective source for information, eh?? :^/
Tell me, is Hillary and her money-buddy Hsu featured prominently in that site??
Of course not.. Because EVERYONE knows that only the GOP can have "crooks and liars" in their midst..
That was sarcasm in case you missed it..
Michale.....
Michale,
Yeah... Big Noise Films is saying something totally unsupported elsewhere... oh wait...
here
Fahdawi, the sheik from the Albu Fahd tribe, said the militia was forged in a series of secret meetings among tribal leaders, each of whom was asked to help form the group. Some contributed men, some money, Fahdawi said. U.S. military officers attended some of the meetings, he said, and helped "with "all kinds of financial support."
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, denied that American forces were funding the militia.
So, Fahdawi states that the U.S. is giving them all kinds of financial support and Lt. Col. Johnson rushes to the mic screaming we aren't funding the militia!
Yeah... sure... totally unsupported by such sources as the Washington Post...
I never claimed anything was "unsupported"..
I am simply questioning the integrity and objectiveness of your source...
Or perhaps you would believe that billclintonisaliar.com would be a good objective source of information about Bill Clinton, eh?? :^/
Hint to you.. You would be a LOT more believable if you weren't such a hysterical Bush Basher....
Your like the bird watcher who takes a big picture book of all the birds of the world, hysterically points to all the red birds in the book and screams, "SEE!!!! THERE IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT ALL BIRDS ARE RED!!!!!!!"
Actions like that just cause you to be lumped with the likes of Charlie Sheen and other conspiracy loons....
Michale.....