Rethinking the Bush Doctrine

Rethinking the Bush Doctrine

Christopher Ruddy
Monday, Sept. 30, 2002

The War On Terrorism remains the most important issue facing America today, and to date George W. Bush has done a superb job of rallying America to deal with this crisis. How far we have come from the days of the Clinton-Gore presidency and the ignore-our-problems crowd that ran America’s national security apparatus!

When Al Gore spoke in California last week and derided the Bush administration, Gore said he was shocked to learn on 9/11 that the FBI only had one person assigned to monitor al-Qaeda.

That revelation was indeed shocking, but even more so because it was the Clinton-Gore administration that stripped the CIA and FBI to the point that just one man at the FBI was on duty covering al-Qaeda.

Indeed, Bush was not at fault for that. It was the Clintonized FBI that let America’s guard down. You can be sure that the one-man al-Qaeda team at the FBI was the legacy of Clinton-Gore-Reno-Freeh. Bush’s man, Robert Mueller showed up at the J. Edgar Hoover building just days before 9/11. Still, many conservatives and others were angered by Al Gore’s criticism of President Bush’s policy toward Iraq.

I wasn’t. I think a democracy thrives on debate. I disagreed with much of what Gore said, but I believe America is too great a nation not to have a vigorous debate over going to war, and to change long standing policies about pre-emptive strikes. I am also glad that Chris Matthews is offering a counter-point as well to the near unanimous chorus for an outright invasion of Iraq.

As my regular readers know, I am not for taking Saddam Hussein for granted. I believe as strongly as President Bush that Saddam must go. I just wonder if other methods and strategies could be employed, just as quickly and effectively, to remove Saddam.

Perhaps these other methods could also reduce the number of young Americans soldiers who may die, as well as the enormous collateral death and damage that may result if Saddam unleashes smallpox or another mass destruction weapon against the U.S. or Israel.

As I said, even friends who share deeply held values and have great admiration for each other can and will at times disagree.

For instance, my first disagreement with President Bush was his rejection of a timely and in-depth Congressional probe into what went wrong with America’s intelligence services that allowed 9/11 to take place.

I can certainly sympathize with Bush’s belief that an in-depth investigation would distract from his number one job: protecting America. However, as the famous adage goes, "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.”

Also, the failure to demand accountability after the catastrophe of 9/11 may well cause even greater disasters to befall us.

There is now massive evidence that there were many advanced warnings of the 9/11 attacks, and that the FBI and CIA agents were well aware of the activities of at least several of the hijackers months before the tragic attacks.

Had these leads been pursued and communicated to the proper authorities, the entire plot might have unraveled and 9/11 might never have taken place.

However, somehow these leads were not pursued, though there is evidence the warnings were adequately communicated to agency authorities. With our enemies now rapidly acquiring weapons of mass destruction, we cannot allow this to happen again - ever. It’s vital that we discover what went wrong and fix the problems as soon as possible.

A second significant disagreement is over current administration preparations for war against Iraq. First let me stipulate that Saddam Hussein is an evil SOB who deserves to be eliminated from the face of the earth, both for the good of his own people and for the good of the world. However, several aspects of the present war preparations remain very troubling to me:

If Saddam is indeed the friend of terrorists and an imminent threat to America and world peace that President Bush says he is, why didn’t actions to isolate and eliminate him begin in September 2001, rather than the summer of 2002?

Since Saddam cannot conjure up biological weapons and uranium for atomic bombs out of thin air, it would have made sense, as NewsMax Pundit John LeBoutillier recently wrote, to bomb all of his suspected weapons sites months ago. Additionally, Admiral Moorer has said we should have long ago embargoed all of Iraq’s oil, depriving Saddam of the money he needs to keep his war machine running.

Not only would these actions have been far less controversial and divisive than the current planned invasion of Iraq, they would also be far less costly in terms of human lives. Further, they could have been justified by existing U.N. resolutions.

Another puzzle is the public way President Bush has been announcing his Iraqi war plans to the media. When dealing with a mass murderer like Saddam, it seems to me that the last thing you want to do is to let him know in advance that you are coming after him, giving him both the motive and opportunity to ready his own devastating attacks on Israel and America.

A third puzzle is why Bush has been courting support of other nations, and the United Nations, for war on Iraq. Now, it looks like these nations and the U.N. will only seek to stymie our war plans, and necessitate the U.S. flouting their opinion. This seems to me doubly worse than simply acting independently. Shortly after 9/11, British writer Paul Johnson wrote that the U.S. should take on the terrorists. He advised Bush to avoid seeking world support, as it would only hamper and limit his ability to fight. How right Johnson was!

But now that we have sought world and allied support I don’t think it would be wise to act unilaterally. If we decide on a course of unilateralism anyway, it could have very negative consequences for the future.

Pre-emptive attack

My last and most serious concern is the Bush doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive attack. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent that could get America involved in countless shooting wars throughout the world. Already there has been talk of invading Saudi oil fields because of that country’s clandestine support for al-Qaeda.

Not only is that incredibly dangerous, it’s also downright un-American. Never in our history has this nation been the first to attack another without direct provocation. Changing that policy could quickly bring the wrath of the world down upon us and result in far more devastating terrorist attacks against America.

Further, Bush must consider the implications of his new doctrine for the foreign policies of other nations. While Bush might like to reserve the "right" of pre-emptive attack for cases of clear and present danger to America, the reality of world politics is that other nations will likely quickly follow our moral lead.

By legitimizing pre-emptive attack, other nations may well use their own domestic version of the Bush doctrine to justify attacks on other countries with whom they have disagreements.

At best, that will escalate the threat of war between countries such as India and Pakistan (both of which have nuclear weapons). At worst, adoption of local versions of the Bush doctrine by many nations could lead to incredible violence and bloodshed.

The U.S. has always stood for international restraint and avoided being the nation to cast the first stone. By overturning that 200-year-old tradition, President Bush risks letting a very dangerous genie out of the bottle.

The Bush doctrine needs to be rethought and rearticulated before it leads to the very tragedies it is intended to prevent. We need to think about taking intermediate steps first, such as more significant use of our intelligence agencies and covert operations, before launching an all out war.

One good alternative is to consider covertly eliminating Saddam, rather than attacking him and his country so publicly. We should also rethink the use of reward bounties for rogue operators like Hussein or bin Laden. Congressman Ron Paul and Wilson Lucom have advocated this idea. A huge bounty, say $500 million, for bin Laden or Hussein, might be far cheaper than a $100 billion war against Iraq, and save American and Iraqi lives in the bargain. The beauty of this idea is that it costs nothing if it doesn’t work.

The bottom line is this: I support President Bush’s forthright assault on terror and the nations that support terrorism. Still, America needs a more coherent and reasonable foreign policy that protects the U.S. without either provoking international hostility or rejecting the principles that have served us so well for 200 years: justice, peace and freedom.