Who Killed the Bush Doctrine ?

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="6"><center>Who killed the Bush doctrine? </font size></center>

By Michael Rubin
Last update - 14:58 30/09/2005

On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush outlined the goal of his second term. "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world," he said. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Less than a year later, the Bush doctrine is dead, the victim not of outside circumstances, but rather lack of will and ineptness. While Bush may be sincere, across the Middle East, his administration's willingness to sacrifice those seeking freedom has become legendary.

Take Libya: On March 12, 2004, Bush declared, "We stand with courageous reformers ... Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi el-Jahmi. He's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating free speech and democracy. It's an encouraging step toward reform in Libya. You probably have heard, Libya is beginning to change her attitude about a lot of things.

Actually, Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi had not changed. Two weeks later, Libyan security rearrested Jahmi. Across the Middle East, analysts saw Qadhafi's actions as a challenge to Bush. The President responded not by tying rapprochement to El-Jahmi's freedom, but with impotence. As El-Jahmi rots in prison, denied medical care for his diabetes, the U.S. Treasury Department grants waivers to allow billions of dollars of U.S. investment in Libya. According to the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will endorse Qadhafi's reign with a November visit to Tripoli.

The liberation of Iraq demonstrated that after years of effete diplomacy, the White House meant what it said. Bush reversed that victory.

It should be no surprise that Qadhafi has since gone on a rampage. In May 2005, he imprisoned dissident writer Abdul Razzaq al-Mansouri. In June 2005, regime elements tortured to death dissident journalist Daif al-Ghazal. Hundreds of political prisoners remain in Libyan jails.

The Bush administration also fumbled Lebanon. On March 8, 2005, Bush spoke at the National Defense University. "Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon," he said. "Lebanon's future will be in your hands. The American people are on your side." Perhaps many Americans were, but not the State Department.

When Condoleezza Rice visited Lebanon on July 22, she met not only with the new Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, but also with pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, the man whose quest for an extra-constitutional third term began the cascade that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and sparked the Cedar Revolution. Syrian television, Hezbollah's Al-Manar channel, and the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera all broadcast her handshake with the symbol of tyranny.

The Lebanese were not alone in their betrayal. Egyptians were aghast when, on September 11, new U.S. Ambassador Frank Ricciardone appeared on Egyptian television and declared, "Let me just reiterate the congratulations of the United States of America to Egypt for this great accomplishment. As you know, President Bush has telephoned President Mubarak ... to congratulate him and Egypt on the accomplishments of this past election."

Four days earlier, Mubarak had declared victory in elections marred by harassment of opponents, fraud, and the state's refusal to allow international monitors access. The Egyptian people, in protest, boycotted the polls. Voter turnout was only 20 percent. Rather than support the Egyptian people, the President's representative fawned on a dictator. Sometimes, silence can be the best response.

Embrace of autocracy has become the rule rather than the exception in U.S. foreign policy. At the request of the Palestinian Authority, the State Department banned Issam Abu Issa, a Palestinian anti-corruption activist slated to testify in the House of Representatives.

Bush declared during his 2005 State of the Union Address, "To the Iranian people, I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you." But Rice appointed an ExxonMobil advisor who advised against aiding dissidents to cover the State Department's Iran policy planning portfolio.

Against the backdrop of Bush's indifference, Turkish democracy has taken a step backward. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has both ignored rulings of the Turkish Supreme Court and retaliated against plaintiffs. After Turkish businessman Mustafa Suzer won five lawsuits against the Turkish government for its illegal seizure of Kent Bank, Erdogan not only refused to abide by the court verdict, but he also ordered a travel ban on Suzer and, without any court order, sent bulldozers to demolish a restaurant on his property.

Emboldened by Washington's silence and frustrated at the constraints of an independent judiciary, the Turkish leader has used his parliamentary majority to lower the retirement age of judges so that he can replace nearly half of Turkey's 9,000 judges before the next election.

As they do with Bush, the chattering classes of Europe, Israel, and the American elite once criticized Reagan for his talk of the "Evil Empire" and his willingness to endanger detente for the sake of a few dissidents. Reagan was right, though, and more than two hundred million Soviets had a chance at freedom because of it.

Bush might have been equally successful. Images of Iraqis, Afghans, and Lebanese voting are more powerful than any terrorist car bomb or Al-Qaida video. Armchair experts may say Iraq's liberation emboldened terrorists. But the pages of Arabic newspapers like Al-Sharq al-Awsat and Al-Hayat now carry an unprecedented debate about democracy, which experts said could not happen. Liberals may be a minority in the Arab world, but they have begun to find their voice.

Rice may echo the President, but by embracing dictators, she has undercut the spirit of his message. Dissidents should not be treated as ornaments, to be displayed when convenient but kept at arm's length. They are the foundation of freedom. While Bush might once have been remembered for bringing freedom to 30 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis, his legacy is fast becoming one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/631247.html
 
The Bush Doctrine is the boldest foriegn policy in recent history, if it works we are talking about a liberated Middle East probably the greatest freedom movement since the end of the African Slave Trade, I always thought it was worth the risk but I also wondered if Bush was the man to make it happen he still has time to make it work so I wouldn't say his doctrine is dead but it is close.
 
nittie said:
The Bush Doctrine is the boldest foriegn policy in recent history, if it works we are talking about a liberated Middle East probably the greatest freedom movement since the end of the African Slave Trade, I always thought it was worth the risk but I also wondered if Bush was the man to make it happen he still has time to make it work so I wouldn't say his doctrine is dead but it is close.
curious about a few things. not attacking, just questioning.

isn't any doctrine or foreign policy that has at least a portion of its theory based on pre-emptive war doomed to failure? even if there was a short-term success in the Middle East, you've opened the floodgates for the superpowers of the world to flex their military muscle to force change in any way they see fit. isn't that sure to come back to bite us (or one of our allies) in the ass if/when we have to share the superpower title with someone we don't agree with?

do you really think that the democratization of the Middle East (which is my assumption of what would happen if the Bush Doctrine worked) would actually lead to liberation? wouldn't it just lead to an exchange of religious fanatics opressing the people to corporate fanatics opressing the people? aren't the class based divisions and oppressions in democratic/capitalist societies just as bad (if not worse) than the religious/gender based divisions and oppressions in the theocratic societies currently in power in the Middle East?

where is the correlation of the hypothetical liberation of the Middle East to the abolition of the African slave trade? the oppression of Africans/African Americans in this country did not end when the slave trade was abolished. it continued for centuries in the form of slavery, Jim Crow opression, and currently still exists through legalized slavery within the criminal "justice" system (see 13th amendment to the constitution).
 
isn't any doctrine or foreign policy that has at least a portion of its theory based on pre-emptive war doomed to failure? even if there was a short-term success in the Middle East, you've opened the floodgates for the superpowers of the world to flex their military muscle to force change in any way they see fit. isn't that sure to come back to bite us (or one of our allies) in the ass if/when we have to share the superpower title with someone we don't agree with

The Bush Doctrine is a bold initiative, its the start of a decades long process, there will be problems along the way, other countries might use pre-emptive strikes and then again they might not. I said I thought it was worth the risk and with any risk theres the chance for failure but if this Doctrine succeeds the payoff will be huge.

do you really think that the democratization of the Middle East (which is my assumption of what would happen if the Bush Doctrine worked) would actually lead to liberation? wouldn't it just lead to an exchange of religious fanatics opressing the people to corporate fanatics opressing the people? aren't the class based divisions and oppressions in democratic/capitalist societies just as bad (if not worse) than the religious/gender based divisions and oppressions in the theocratic societies currently in power in the Middle East

I think if you took the average person, let them stay in America for a week and then sent them to Libya for a few hours, they would pay anything to come back here lol. There is nothing like freedom even with its class and racial divisions it beats the hell out of oppression and let's face it those people over there have been slaves almost since the beginning of time. Its mind boggling when you think about it, any free people should be morally repulsed and opposed to those regimes in the Middle East.




where is the correlation of the hypothetical liberation of the Middle East to the abolition of the African slave trade? the oppression of Africans/African Americans in this country did not end when the slave trade was abolished. it continued for centuries in the form of slavery, Jim Crow opression, and currently still exists through legalized slavery within the criminal "justice" system (see 13th amendment to the constitution
).

This point is so complex I won't even try to go in depth about the correlations between the Middle East and the African slave trade we would be here for years. I will say when you talk about human rights, the basic right an individual has to live their life as they see fit, liberating the Middle East is on par with ending the practice of enslaving Africans if you are a strict disciple of freedom and democracy liberating that part of the world is the next logical step in ending human oppression.
 
Andre Nickatina said:
curious about a few things. not attacking, just questioning.

isn't any doctrine or foreign policy that has at least a portion of its theory based on pre-emptive war doomed to failure?
Is preemption really all that radical? What nation would stand idly by if it had a reasonable belief that some danger might be imminent or too foreboding to allow it gain momentum? If used properly, not only can it act to ward off trouble, but it can place the user in the better offensive position than reacting after something has happened. My point being, preemption is not necessarily evil in and of itself, its how its used given the circumstances. So, instead of doomed to failure, it could be a saving grace.

even if there was a short-term success in the Middle East, you've opened the floodgates for the superpowers of the world to flex their military muscle to force change in any way they see fit. isn't that sure to come back to bite us (or one of our allies) in the ass if/when we have to share the superpower title with someone we don't agree with?
I don't believe that Iraq was the case for preemption because I don't think the case was made for there being an immediate threat from its supposed WMD. Nor do I believe that there was a nexus between Saddam and Osama.

On the other hand, had there been what it my mind an immediate threat or a serious threat that could be delivered within a year or so, or had there been a real nexus between Saddam and Al Qaeda -- then I would think that preemption against Iraq was the thing to do.

With respect to "Open the Floodgates": what superpower or any lesser power would stand by in the face of an imminent threat to its well being ??? Since all nations have their own interests to protect, an attack, whether preemptive or otherwise, eventually threatens every other nation's security. Hence, preemption against one country is tempered by the reaction of other countries acting in their best interest. For example, a preemptive strike today against North Korea would have to take into account the counter-reaction of China, Russia or maybe even china and Russia. I would suggest that one reason that has not happened, even after Iraq, is because the floodgates are not open, otherwise, Taiwan really would be a province of the PRC right now -- although it might be soon, in which case, the Chinese would have made a calculation of the U.S.'s counter-reaction and concluded that taking Taiwan was not only in the best interest of the PRC but a survivable action as well.

do you really think that the democratization of the Middle East (which is my assumption of what would happen if the Bush Doctrine worked) would actually lead to liberation? wouldn't it just lead to an exchange of religious fanatics opressing the people to corporate fanatics opressing the people? aren't the class based divisions and oppressions in democratic/capitalist societies just as bad (if not worse) than the religious/gender based divisions and oppressions in the theocratic societies currently in power in the Middle East?
Personally, I don't know if the Middle East can be "Democratized". If Iraq is the example (though an incomplete example), the prospect seems dim to me, at least right now. Islam, as practiced in that region, seems to me to be hostile to many, if not most, of the tenets of democracy, as we know them: hostile to equality of women, hostile to non-muslims, and generally hostile to any notion not embraced by their brand of Islam. Democratization of the Middle East might happen, but I doubt it will be a hybrid we're familiar with -- which also means the corporate estate might not have as much influence and power as it does in the US.

QueEx
 
Wish I had come across this thread following the Charles Gibson interview of Sarah Palin.
 
Back
Top