Other - Politics & Government - March 2007

And have him drown all the terrorists?

2007-03-02 03:18:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

ANDREW J. BACEVICH
Rescinding the Bush Doctrine
By Andrew J. Bacevich | March 1, 2007

RATHER THAN vainly sniping at President Bush over his management of the Iraq war, the Democratic-controlled Congress ought to focus on averting any recurrence of this misadventure. Decrying the so-called "surge" or curbing the president's authority to conduct ongoing operations will contribute little to that end. Legislative action to foreswear preventive war might contribute quite a lot.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Op-ed RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Editorials / Op-Ed |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Long viewed as immoral, illicit, and imprudent, preventive war -- attacking to keep an adversary from someday posing a danger -- became the centerpiece of US national security strategy in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush unveiled this new strategy in a speech at West Point in June 2002. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said, "we will have waited too long." The new imperative was to strike before threats could form. Bush declared it the policy of the United States to "impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Although the Constitution endows the legislative branch with the sole authority to declare war, the president did not consult Congress before announcing his new policy. He promulgated the Bush Doctrine by fiat. Then he acted on it.

In 2003, Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; arguing that he might one day do so, the administration depicted the invasion of Iraq as an act of anticipatory self-defense. To their everlasting shame, a majority of members in both the House and the Senate went along, passing a resolution that "authorized" the president to do what he was clearly intent on doing anyway. Implicitly, the Bush Doctrine received congressional endorsement.

Events since have affirmed the wisdom of seeing preventive war as immoral, illicit, and imprudent. The Bush administration expected a quick, economical, and decisive victory in Iraq. Advertising the war as an effort to topple a brutal dictator and liberate an oppressed people, it no doubt counted on battlefield success to endow the enterprise with a certain ex post facto legitimacy. Elated Iraqis showering American soldiers with flowers and candies would silence critics who condemned the war as morally unjustified and patently illegal.

None of these expectations has come to pass. In its trial run, the Bush Doctrine has been found wanting.

Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.

Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.

The remedy to this catastrophic failure lies not in having another go -- a preventive attack against Iran, for example -- but in acknowledging that the Bush Doctrine is inherently pernicious. Our reckless flirtation with preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do the perils it supposedly guards against.

We urgently need to abrogate that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests and our professed moral values. Here lies an opportunity for Congress to make a difference.

The fifth anniversary of President Bush's West Point speech approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points: First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war. Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack on the United States, any future use of force will require prior Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The legislation should state plainly our determination to defend ourselves and our allies. But it should indicate no less plainly that the United States no longer claims the prerogative of using "preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Declaring the Bush Doctrine defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future. By taking such action, Congress will restore its relevance, its badly tarnished honor, and its standing in the eyes of the American people.

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.

2007-03-02 03:18:49 · 4 answers · asked by franco vita 2

Wait, this month it is called Climate Change, sorry.

2007-03-02 03:11:58 · 11 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6

At the top of the list ?
Mine would be KEN LIVINGSTONE and MAGGIE THATCHER. !

2007-03-02 03:05:59 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

I am afraid so many of them are living in a fantasy world where Nixon was impeached and Clinton wasn't. I just want to help them face reality and become productive members of society.

2007-03-02 03:03:25 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just don't get the "not-hate" mindset. Thankfully, we have an entire political party that understands why we must hate bush. And that's why in '08 the democrats are going to won. The rethuglikkkans won't get one vote. Bush killed 60 million people and an untold number of pets. How can you just passively let that slide? Our muslim freedom fighting brothers get it, why don't some americans? Why do some people not hate bush?

2007-03-02 02:58:53 · 25 answers · asked by mmm_billy01 2

ım a turk.. and ı love him.. ı hope our government goes along with them.. because iran, is a pretty good and strong ally of turkey's...

2007-03-02 02:48:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-02 02:46:17 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

i was wondering wheter the british viewed those people who fought for the colonise in the war of independence as insurgents.

2007-03-02 02:36:33 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

Chris Simcox of 'The Minutemen' on Hannity and colmes had this to say about GOP Presidential candidate John McCain?

SIMCOX: Well, we call it "shamnesty." And Senators McCain and Kennedy and the rest of the Senate should be shamed out of office for refusing to enforce the laws of this nation. There's no place for any elected official in our government who refuses to enforce the law.

Again "There's no place for any elected official in our government who refuses to enforce the law."

Do you support the Minutemen's criticism of Republican Senator John McCain?

2007-03-02 02:21:19 · 13 answers · asked by Timothy B 3

2007-03-02 02:20:51 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

You can no longer vote SECRETLY in union elections thanks to Nancy Pelosi.

I'm sure no one will get "bullied" into voting differently than they had planned.

Nazis used to do something like this. I think Iran and NKorea still do it too.

Are Libs proud of this rule?

2007-03-02 02:19:59 · 4 answers · asked by duck 2

2007-03-02 02:13:31 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

If there was an election where we could decide to vote out every single member of both parties in washington (yes means that every member of congress, the presidency, and the supreme court is thrown out and we start over), would you vote yes or no?

2007-03-02 02:07:56 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Score one for Civil Rights. These guys used to wear sheets and run around at night, now they are serving as senators!

2007-03-02 02:07:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

IM not a provokatör... ı just want to learn about which country has enmity for other countries... for example ın a turk, and ı eliminate armenia as well.. and greece... :p just kidding.. peace for ever...
but sometimes u dont like a country... however...

2007-03-02 02:06:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

A flood ditch was made and I feel that it creates a flooding and traffic hazard. What can I do to stop this, even though construction is already completed. I have pictures available from before winter.
Who do I contact to resolve this issue immediately and win the case???

2007-03-02 02:00:47 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm sorry that some of my earlier Q's had a couple spelling errors. It was prolly the drugs.

The rethuglikkkan party has always been evil. We all know this. Has Bush moved this evil up a notch?

Lincoln was only very evil. Sure, he may have created the rethuglikkkan party, but he also gave us the black voter block.

Reagan was merely absolute evil. Despite being an actor, he didn't embrace the virtues of marxism. He even fought against it!

Is bush something even worse?

First he stole the election. Then he murdered millions of blacks in New Orleans. After that, 9-11 happened and he used it as an excuse to invade iraq and kill everyone there.

In total, bush has killed over 50 million people, many of them democrat voters. He has imprisoned and personally tortured many millions more......just for fun.

We must all unite against him. Not just people, but conservatives as well.

Has Bush raised our consciousness of the full potential of evil?

2007-03-02 01:56:57 · 13 answers · asked by mmm_billy01 2

To get rid of Bush and his fellow criminals. To take the wealth that is being hoarded up by a tiny minority of privellaged aristocratic Americans and redistribute it round all the people. All profits made from business should then go into building schools, hosptals and infrastructure for the people instead of lining the pockets of greedy capitalists. Its time for the United States of America to become the Socialist States of America

2007-03-02 01:45:24 · 19 answers · asked by Sean D 3

Now that they found out how much energy he is wasting and his 20-room mansion they desperately try to enlist him. Thats what I heard... Is it true?

2007-03-02 01:44:39 · 10 answers · asked by Rona9 2

I am trying to get into that Liberal mindset, but I just can't.

2007-03-02 01:35:20 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

If I don't agree with a Republican they, right away, resort to insults and call me a traiter to my country.

Why is this, and will they ever change?

2007-03-02 01:31:15 · 26 answers · asked by Brotherhood 7

2007-03-02 01:29:31 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

and why isnt the money rather used to feed millions of impoverished people? are these things more important than saving lives??

2007-03-02 01:20:08 · 4 answers · asked by keke, m 1

Senators John McCain and Teddy Kennedy are trying to push through a bill that would allow amnesty for up to 20 million illegal immigrants currently in the USA, as well as allowing their extended families to come in as well as US citizens without having to reenter the normal path to citizenship, with only a small fine.
It would also allow illegals to recieve Social Security benefits after only 10 months in the country (past residence, although illegal, would count toward the 10 months). Since it takes over 10 years for American citizens to gain said benefits, do you agree with this Bill? Would you vote for McCain as President?

2007-03-02 01:11:40 · 5 answers · asked by Eric K 5

2007-03-02 00:55:32 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

If so, then you have got to read this. Finally, someone with some sort of a voice who tells it like it is. No matter who you are, this is good stuff. Please read the article and then come back and place your comment here.

Right Click and Open in New Window or Tab.
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1055&Itemid=135

2007-03-02 00:40:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-02 00:37:56 · 18 answers · asked by 5470 1

-a planned terrorist attack performed by middle easterns
-its all bin laden's fault
-a secretly planned attack performed by U.S. government officials (including bush)
-or any other......



and what do you think is the motivation behind those attacks?

-to hate America more
-to kill more Americans and cause costly damages
-to have a reason to blame and therefor attack middle east (especially Afghanistan and iraq, two countries that hate America)
-to attack middle east for oil
-any other...........


and thanks for sharing your opinion!

2007-03-02 00:22:39 · 14 answers · asked by Camron 1

The country music crowd seems to be the most patriotic people in America (or at least they think they are), so why are they against freedom of speech?

2007-03-02 00:04:18 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous