The Bush doctrine asserts that America can pre-emptively and unilaterally act to prevent "rogue" nations or terrorist states from obtaining or deploying WMD. The President summarizes his foreign policy with this sentence, that he "will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." He has followed through on this, the attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq the most salient features of that policy. It goes without saying that the Bush Doctrine has many critics, both domestically, and internationally. With the war in Iraq he has sacrificed virtually every important bilateral relationship the US had sustained throughout the cold war in going after the "rogues."

Preventing the proliferation of WMD by the developing world is certainly a worthy goal. However, is the aggressive military posture and unilateral decisiveness undertaken by the US wise, or even sustainable? The soaring costs of occupying Iraq, and the increasing strain on the US military created by the the demands of promulgating this doctrine are some the consequences of pursuing it. And we are in the beginning stages, the costs will continue to rise. In the end, the question must be raised-are we safer for having done these things?
Please consider this article from the Atlantic Monthly-After Iraq: Is President Bush Making Us Safer?

I quote the first two paragraphs-


I agree with this. Riding roughshod over the world community, and estranging our allies in the pursuit of our foreign policy goals is not the path our country should take. It is indefensible-and ultimately unsustainable. We need the help of our friends-and the world community needs to included in the effort to secure the future against WMD. "My way or the highway" is not a valid foreign policy. What do you think? And what about Bush's performance in this situation? Is he really the best choice?

Personally, I think it is making us safer. Look back at the history of our involvement with Iraq. Do you really think at any time Iraq felt militarily superior to the US? No--they made a calculated decision (twice, in fact) that we wouldn't take that step. In doing so, and apparently successfully, they opened the door for other nations to also see just how far they could push things. In short, I think we had lost the credible threat so important in our minimizing the actions of rogue nations.

That being said, there is certainly another side to the argument--are these nations now going to spend greater effort to acquire WMD to counteract this increased credible threat? The jury is certainly still out on this. And, even if they did so, would the 'credible threat' further restrict their actual use? Korea being a case in point--what would Korea benefit from some sort of preemptive first strike? Nothing, except their potential extermination. So, their possession of WMD doesn't really make us less 'safe', it just imposes some restrictions on military actions over 'there'. Which indicates the Bush doctrine is actually self-regulating in that regard.

personally, I think it is setting a dangerous precedent.

Russia bares its military teeth

this is ALL we need, and what many worried would end up happening. other states will (and apparently ARE) decide that if america can take pre-emptive military action, then they can too. ("we feel (insert name) is/might be a threat, so we are going to take them out before they can do so")

what happens when/if russia feels that georgia is a threat to their security, and we decide to defend them?(georgia) not that this WILL happen, but the possibility is definitely been raised.

How will our ambassadors defend the United States when inevitably, charges are brought that George W. Bush has turned the United States into a rogue nation that attacks without provocation, deploying and using "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Can we claim that we have no MOABS, ICBMs, nuclear bombs, nuclear warheads, arsenals of germs, and poison gases on hand?

Will the shifting sands of reasons that GWB has used to justify the war on Iraq ever amount to anything more than, "We think we might have got the bad guys."?

Osama Bin Laden appears to still be alive, and spreading his message of hate against the United States.

George W. Bush is still alive, and spreading a similarly irrational message of hate through the world. "If you aren't with us, you're against us." sounds more the language of a street gang, than of modern international diplomacy.

Al Qaeda reminds me of a mythological creature called a Hydra. If you cut off one head, it grew two more. Have we "crushed" this terrorist organization, only to spawn several more that we will be warring against for decades?

As the nation with the world's most destructive weapons, it seemed to me disingenuous to develop as a policy, that an administration that controls such weapons should be removed from power. Nonetheless, this "Bush doctrine" provides a good argument for voting against him next year. We should not permit the world's most dangerous regime to threaten anyone with the world's most destructive weapons. GWB has used his Presidency in such a way, that he has effectively proven that he cannot be trusted with military power and WMDs.

The doctrine itself is not the problem. How it's sold can be. We have to make sure we intervene when right is on our side, as in Afghanistan and Iraq. We sat back for a long time, waiting and hoping the world's worst trouble spots would somehow work themselves out. Nazi Germany was the most grievous example. So far. We were headed towards another such disaster, it was only a matter of time.

Fortunately, we learned from history and chose a different path. Allowing the gradual escalation of real threats had to be stopped. There is no doubt that 9/11 would have been followed by an even greater catastrophe if we hadn't responded the way we did.

We can no longer afford to avoid doing what needs to be done because we don't want to offend other nations. We should ratchet up our military strength and increase our troop strength. We must improve greatly our ability to re-build and return any country we enter to its rightful owners, providing them with the foundation for freedom.

Before you get your panties all twisted though, don't think this means we will be invading country after country after country. To the contrary, a foreign policy such as this will actually prevent those battles. The world will learn that not only do we have the military might, but the will to use it when necessary. That has been in doubt in recent years and has emboldened the enemies of freedom.

God has a way of showing us the way, prodding if needed, and poking if required. All we needed was someone in the White House who didn't think that poking was coming from his bimbo-in-waiting.

No, the Bush Doctrine has already proven unsustainable. We will not be doing any preemptive things for decades to come due to the Iraq SNAFU.

Pleading for help from the UN, begging for dollars from the Congress, spinning failure into success . . . this is not sustainable.

The Bush Doctrine is and always was bad thinking spawned from people who have lots of "then a miracle happens" in their process charts, and who, when challenged, either dismiss criticism or actively go after critics.

Even to the point of inventing threats to our national security in order to push the Doctrine's agenda.

This sort of politicing has never been sustainable. People and nations rebel against such tactics every time.

pssion51



I'm not all that sure that I would call war, a 'different path'.
It seems to me, that we have learned nothing from history if we think that waging war will solve our problems.

All we've really done is exchange one set of problems for several new ones.
I think Curmudgeon is correct when he uses the hydra as an example.

I suspect the Bush doctrine is a failure. I think this because it is too simple minded to suppose that you can kill an idea with force.

Many Americans(or a majority now in poll data) are now balking at the price of maintaining our pre-emptive foreign policy, and the cost of administering our vanquished foes. The Bush Doctrine ties into the greater issue of an American Empire. Challenging and defeating our rogue nation enemies, also implies administering them after we have taken those countries over.
The Christian Science Monitor discusses the issue of American empire in this article, and American attitudes for paying its price.US 'empire' and its limits

And that division between administration policy and national will grows larger every day. Perhaps this is a sign of that strange collective amnesia for things past that manifests itself as yesterday's tragedies recede into history. Anyone think that it would take another terrorist attack to shore up the loss of national will?