|
The
Doctrine
April 19, 2002
By S.A. Lowery aka Khephra
"Enough Is Enough." — George W. Bush, April 4, 2002
 For
possibly the first time in his life, George W. Bush spoke
honestly to the American public instead of spinning or sloganeering,
when he uttered the words, "Enough is enough!" Although he
was speaking out on the crisis in the Middle East, those words
rang true because those words also lend themselves to another
matter at hand on the minds of many people across the globe
- the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine is a hypocritical, childish game of cowboys
and Indians disguised as foreign policy. With each passing
day, it is becoming plain to see -- to even the most casual
observer of Bush's words and deeds -- just how much of a threat
the Bush Doctrine is to the stability of the world.
Yes, Mr. Bush, we have had enough -- enough of both you and
of your Doctrine of Domination.
The Bush Doctrine Abroad
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..." — George
W. Bush Dec 18, 2000
What is the Bush Doctrine? Simply stated, it is a policy
of division, of segregation, and of opposition. It is "Us
versus Them" politics; with "Them" being whatever country
Bush has cast in the guise of would-be villain that week,
preferably a country filled with Arabs and oil. Ever since
the Cold War ended, the Republican Party has been casting
about for a new enemy to replace their old stand-by, the U.S.S.R.,
so they can justify their bloated military budgets and religious
devotion to Star Wars technology. And now it looks like Bush
has found one - everybody but us. Or perhaps I should say,
everyone but the U.S.?
Congress originally gave Bush their backing to use force
in this War on Terror because his stated goal was to track
down and bring to justice the plotters behind the attacks
on 9/11. He was not given a free rein to send our men and
women into whatever country he so chooses, simply because
he says it is an evil nation. There needs to be evidence of
their complicity beyond Bush's accusatory rhetoric. Or have
we abandoned the idea that we are a nation of laws, simply
because the Republicans are repeating over and over that "everything
has changed," and "we are at war"?
We were told we would be given proof of Osama bin Laden's
involvement in the tragedy of 9/11, but the American public
is still waiting. Not all of us have forgotten the Bush Administration's
promise on this issue. Now we are being told of possible connections
linking Saddam Hussein to 9/11, as well. Based upon past Bush
Administration actions, it is almost a certainty Bush will
send our troops into Iraq, regardless of whether or not there
is an actual case against Saddam.
Do Bush's accusations of guilt merit the risk of all-out
war in the Middle East, when we have friendly diplomatic relations
with many other similar dictators? Before our country throws
our support behind a potentially disastrous move, such as
attacking Iraq -- right at a time when anti-American feelings
have never been stronger in the Arab world -- some of us would
still like to see the initial evidence connecting Osama bin
Laden to 9/11 that we were promised. If he was actually involved,
it should not be too hard to produce. Edited, mistranslated
videos that would not even be admitted as evidence in a court
of law are simply not enough from this Administration anymore.
Understand this point, and you will understand why the Bush
Administration is trying to create an unconstitutional tribunal
system just to try "some" accused terrorists.
Why is Bush going after Saddam when the war in Afghanistan
is unfinished and Osama bin Laden is supposedly still on the
run? It would stand to reason that bin Laden is still a threat,
but Bush has said in the past that he does not think about
Osama bin Laden that much anymore, and it has also been droned
into us that the war was bigger than just one man. That may
be so, but if it is, then it is also bigger than Bush and
his self-centered goal of completing his father's work.
Another issue that is bigger than Bush is our country's relationship
with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has also been criticized for
being involved in many of the same actions we accuse Saddam
Hussein of committing. If we are going to back an attack on
Iraq as a country, then we, as a people, need to be given
an explanation from the Bush Administration as to why we are
not waging war with Saudi Arabia as well.
The Bush Administration has been trying to convince the world
that the U.S. must deal with Iraq, because Saddam's support
of terrorism is a threat to us all. That may be so, and in
fact is very likely. However, if these are the reasons behind
Bush's desire to depose Saddam, and not just petty revenge,
then why did Bush invite Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah back
to the Bush Ranch? Even though the Prince has now cancelled,
uncancelled, and recancelled the meeting, we will have to
assume that Bush would have still met with the Prince, since
the Administration has not said otherwise.
The stated purpose was Mideast peace, which would be a refreshing
change from Mideast war, and on that topic I have no criticism.
However, by attempting to meet with Abdullah, Bush has further
undermined his own case for enacting the Bush Doctrine as
official U.S. foreign policy.
By the Bush Doctrine's convoluted logic, those that support
terrorists, in any way, directly or indirectly, are just as
"evil" as the terrorists themselves. In fact, they have been
judged as being terrorists as well. Remember, you are either
with him or against him in Bush's worldview. There was supposed
to be no hedging on this issue. Too bad for Mr. Bush that
the Bush Doctrine is totally unworkable in the real world
in which the rest of us are forced to live.
The Bush Administration has repeatedly lectured us that there
would be no negotiations with terrorist in the "morally clear"
world of the Bush Doctrine. However, as stated before, the
Saudi Arabian Government has clearly supported terrorism in
the past. So would that not also make Crown Prince Abdullah
a terrorist supporter and his government a state that sponsors
terrorism? So I ask you, why is Bush inviting a known terrorist
supporter to his home instead of "rooting him out"? And if
he is willing to speak with Abdullah about peace, why not
attempt to speak to Saddam as well? Or is that too radical
of an idea? There is no clear answer to these questions, it
is simply more hypocrisy from a hypocritical administration.
In fact, the majority of the terrorist hijackers of 9/11
were not from Afghanistan or Iraq, instead they were citizens
of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has set up a fund to issue payouts
to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, just like
Iraq. Saudi Arabia has a government that oppresses its own
people, just like Iraq. So why is Bush beating the drums against
Iraq and not beating them against Saudi Arabia? That question
is easy to answer -- oil. When it comes to oil, the Bush Administration
has no moral qualms about dealing with states that support
terrorism. Unless it is Saddam Hussein, of course - then it
is personal. Saudi Arabia is only "business" as usual.
Bush does not like to be pestered by such a bothersome issue
as finding the man he directly blamed for 9/11 anymore. That
is, unless Bush's poll numbers are slipping, and then Osama
bin Laden will suddenly become a hot topic again, and Bush's
failures will be pushed from the news. Osama bin Laden is
"spotted" or a "new" tape is "found". Excuse me for sounding
conspiracy minded, but it is hard to know what is real and
what is make-believe when the enemy that you fight has been
trained by our own CIA.
However, should a reporter dare to inquire about the hunt
for Osama bin Laden at any other time than when he is in the
news, the Bush Administration will deflect each question with
platitudes and spin. This is an outrageous insult to the families
of the victims of 9/11 who watch in silence, waiting for word
on Osama bin Laden's fate.
Let me put this into an analogy that everyone can understand.
Maybe then, even the Republican hawks will realize -- when
you share this story with them -- just how important it is
that we deal with Osama bin Laden. There really is no way
this War on Terror can ever be won unless he is brought to
justice or killed in combat.
Imagine, if you will, that you come home one night and find
a Sheriff's patrol car, with its red and blue lights on, parked
right in front of your house. You rush towards your front
door, hoping that your family is safe and sound, and that
it is just a false alarm. But Sheriff Bush stops you and informs
you that a serial killer called the Evil Doer has murdered
your family.
Standing in front of the press with a bullhorn, he promises
to track down the murdering "guy" who killed your family in
cold blood, because he thought they were weak. You ask some
questions about your alarm system. Was it working? Did the
locks hold? "I will tell you later," Sheriff Bush says with
a smirk. You're in too much of a state of shock to think clearly,
so you go mourn in solitude for a while, trusting that the
man in charge of hunting down your family's killers will bring
them to justice.
Months pass, and you still haven't heard any updates on the
investigation from Sheriff Bush. However, you have been seeing
the Sheriff on TV quite a bit recently, talking about his
Manhunt on Murder. Each time the Sheriff speaks before the
press, he does not really bother to share any new details
about the case. Instead the Sheriff rants on and on about
how the Evil Doer is such an evil man and how he must be stopped
dead in his tracks. He then goes on to repeat the word "evil"
about a thousand times in 10 minutes.
Once again, you decide to put your trust in the Sheriff,
so you sit at home and wait in heartbreaking silence. Surely,
you think, the Sheriff will keep at his job, even if you aren't
watching his press conferences anymore. So you go back to
waiting.
As time progresses, you notice a change in the things Sheriff
Bush is saying. Instead of talking about hunting down the
serial killer who slaughtered your family, he's now talking
about some vague idea of hunting down all serial killers and
eliminating serial killer murder altogether. One day, Sheriff
Bush starts talking about another serial killer called the
Boogeyman. As the days turn into weeks, you start to notice
that your case starts getting less and less airtime from the
Sheriff during his press conferences and public statements.
Soon all he is talking about is the Boogeyman and the need
to end serial killing once and for all, and then your case
is not mentioned again.
The Sheriff also expands his Manhunt on Murder to include
all people who have ever committed a murder -- including soldiers
-- or anyone who might possibly one day commit a murder. People
who rent apartments to "murderers" and shopkeepers who have
sold to "murderers" are also put on notice that Sheriff Bush's
Manhunt will get them too, if they don't watch out.
Eventually, you start to investigate the murder of your family
by hiring a team of lawyers and private dectives, but Sheriff
Bush does not like that. And neither does the Sheriff's posse.
Instead of helping you find the man responsible for the deaths
of your family, Sheriff Bush and his cronies now set out to
block all your efforts at finding out the truth. And then
your investigators inform you of their dreadful suspicion
that the Sheriff might actually be financially connected to
the chief suspect in your family's deaths.
You decide to try to call Sheriff Bush once again to find
out if there is any new information on your family's case,
something that would contradict your investigator's information
about the Sheriff, but all you ever get from that point on
is a busy signal when you call. You have now reached your
breaking point.
Fed up with it all, you sneak into a press conference being
held by the Sheriff's spokesman, and you bravely ask, "What
about the man responsible for killing my family? When will
he be brought to justice? Is Sheriff Bush even interested
in my case anymore?" But instead of answering, the spokesman
sneers at you and says, "The Manhunt is more important than
just one man." He cuts you off when you try to ask a follow-up
question, only to answer a question about the Sheriff's desire
to take care of the Boogeyman once and for all instead, and
they promise to do the job this time, unlike the Sheriff's
father, Poppa Sheriff.
Depressed and angry, you flee the press conference and head
towards home. Once there, you throw yourself into bed, wishing
this nightmare would end. You swear to yourself that tomorrow
you will stand up to Sheriff Bush publicly, as you drift off
to sleep.
But you never get your chance, because like many criminals,
the Evil Doer returns to the scene of his crime. Once again,
the Evil Doer disables your alarm with a penknife, and then
he sneaks up your stairs, up to your room where you sleep.
One moment is all you get. One moment to look up and see the
Evil Doer, wearing a Halloween mask of Sheriff Bush's face,
as he sticks a knife into your belly.
Now you have an idea of what it feels like for the families
of the victims of 9/11, each time Bush publicly dismisses
the idea that capturing Osama bin Laden is important to the
War on Terror. On this issue, like many others, Bush is wrong.
Taking care of Osama bin Laden is more than important; it
is the whole reason we became involved in this war in the
first place.
Congress gave Bush their support to attack Afghanistan because
it was thought he would actually try to track down Osama bin
Laden and the other plotters of 9/11. But if dealing with
Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind 9/11, is no
longer Bush's primary goal, then why is he being allowed to
act like a Junior League General on the world's stage? Osama
bin Laden does matter and Bush needs to realize this fact
and stop insulting us all.
If we are going to be fighting a War on Terror, then the
man who planned the tragedy of 9/11 should be at the top of
the list, not the man Bush thinks is financially behind it.
A terrorist can do an astonishing amount of damage with limited
resources, whereas the financiers of terrorism cannot do anything
without terrorists. The Bush Administration should catch the
man we suspect is responsible for 9/11 first, and then we
can find out more about his funding and Iraq. This should
be the order of our priorities.
Instead of concentrating on the original goal, it seems as
if each week a new country is added to Bush's list of evil
nations. First it was Afghanistan, and now the list is so
long I dare you to try naming them all from memory. When that
many fronts are being opened, then it is essential a clear
exit strategy exists. There is no exit here. There is only
chaos.
The Bush Doctrine was supposed to be a statement of moral
absolutism: There would be no retreat, no surrender, and no
negotiations with terrorists. Instead, we see them reacting
to each day's events in a confusion, because the Middle East
is too complex for good versus evil diplomacy. Changes are
being instituted to the Bush Doctrine on an almost daily basis,
as the situation in the Middle East becomes more entangled
and complex. The Bush Doctrine, once praised for its moral
simplicity, has become the laughing stock of the world community
because of its brazen hypocrisy.
One week it is Syria and Iran that gets Bush's special attention,
but next week it just might be France. Seriously ask yourselves
if you would put it past Bush at this point to use our military
against the European Union, if he thought he could get away
with it, and he believed it would further his political agenda?
France is in more danger than you might think, due to their
government's refusal to assist in the investigation of Zacarias
Moussaoui, because of Ashcroft's oxymoronic goal of deterring
suicidal terrorists by threatening them with the death penalty.
Or maybe next week, it will be the whole of the European
Union instead of just France? It really would not be too much
of a surprise, because, as we all plainly know, speaking out
against the Bush Administration supports terrorism, and if
you support terrorism, then you are as bad as the terrorists.
Is it impossible to think that Bush could ever add a friendly
country to his nations of terror, just because they might
disagree with him? Is that not the basis of the Bush Doctrine?
You are either with us or against us, he said, so just wait
for the day he gets serious about those nagging Europeans
who have dared to question his actions, unlike our silent
politicians at home.
Or maybe Bush will be insane enough to add Israel to his
list of evil nations, because Sharon is not doing what Bush
wants him to do, when he wants him to do it? Of course, Bush
would never be that insane to actually do something as stupid
as that, now would he?
If a country is not an enemy of the U.S. right now, and Bush
wants to wage war on them, well "make no mistake about it,"
he will either add them to his Axis of Evil or he will say
something so diplomatically naive it will push the other side
into being antagonistic towards us, just like he has been
doing with North Korea.
Wrapped in a flag of sunshine patriotism, the drums of war
are being pounded by Republican chickenhawks. What is a chickenhawk?
A "chickenhawk" is a Republican who has had the nerve to criticize
democrats, usually Clinton, on their patriotism during wartime.
These chickenhawks find no hypocrisy in the idea of criticizing
a man for standing up for his beliefs, while at the same time
avoiding service themselves, often due to questionable deferments
and family connections. They call upon others to die in their
wars, yet when it was time for them to serve they simply called
up daddy.
Currently we have sitting in the White House a man who was
released from the National Guard to help run a Republican
political campaign, while the children of people not so well
connected were dying, and not a single Democrat has brought
this issue up since the War on Terror started. That is not
even to mention the fact that no one knows where Bush was
for over a year of his service time.
Normally, I would never care about a politician's military
record. However, with Bush's eagerness to wage war in any
country he chooses, and the chickenhawk's unjust attacks upon
Clinton's interest in brokering a peace agreement in the Middle
East, I feel it is a proper issue to address. Being AWOL because
you have family connections is a little bit different than
speaking out against a war that you feel is wrong. One is
an issue of free speech, the other is one of family connections.
Ever since the Democratic Party was formed, Democrats have
fought bravely in our nation's many military actions and wars.
A few of the Democratic members of Congress are even heroes
with Purple Hearts and other honors. It is time you put your
political life on the line and speak out against the insanity
that is doubling for a just cause. How can you stomach the
hypocrisy of this man as he speaks of sending our youth into
country after country?
What would the Republican's response be if a Democratic President
with a similar military record as Bush's own background was
sitting in the White House today? I can tell you what they
would say. The Republican chickenhawks would shout, "I can
support the troops without supporting the President."
Eventually, enough fronts will be opened in Bush's War on
Terror that our troops will be stretched thin. Soon after,
we will hear the Republican chickenhawks in Congress crying
out for a draft. And this time, not just your sons will go.
They will ask for your daughters too, but we all know their
sons and daughters will never have to fight, just like their
warmongering fathers. It is a tradition with the Republicans,
and we all know Republicans love their traditional family
values.
It is time for you to start using that quote as a preface
to your statements on the war, instead of saying "I support
Bush's War on Terror." It is time for that support to be replaced
with opposition or we are looking at World War III -- a war
caused by Bush's complete lack of understanding of Middle
Eastern history, culture, politics, and religion.
Eye-for-an-eye warfare will not bring security to our country,
which anyone watching the current situation in Israel and
Palestine understands far too clearly. There are times when
military action is appropriate, but we have long passed that
point. It is time to stop slouching towards our own personal
Bethlehem. It is time we stand upright and proud, once again,
and reject the Beast we have become as a country following
at Bush's heels. If we do not stand now, then we risk repeating
the mistakes being played out in Israel and Palestine as I
write this letter, except this time it will be played out
on a global scale. In that nightmare scenario, we will be
the Israelis, and the rest of the world will be our occupied
territories, filled full of potential suicide bombing Palestinians.
Striking out against those you feel have hurt you in fear
is understandable, but so is attempting to find ways of coping
that does not involve bombing every country Bush says is evil.
The goal was simple at first, but now it is vague and undefined.
No other word than quagmire fits in a situation like this.
The sooner the Democratic Party stands up to the Bush Doctrine,
the better. Our country is quickly running out of allies,
treaties, and time because of Bush's posturing and his diplomatic
misstatements. Bush's mistaken idea that the world is his
playground and our men and women in the military his toy soldiers,
given to him by his father, must be rejected before it is
too late.
After decades of nuclear reinforced peace, the policy of
Mutually Assured Destruction has suddenly been thrown to the
wind by the Bush Administration, and an eagerness to unleash
hellfire upon the world has been embraced by many other world
leaders as well. Have we forgotten the horrors of radioactive
death we unleashed upon Japan? Has the Bush Doctrine been
"modified" again? Along with embracing the bomb, will we also
be welcoming Armageddon with open arms? Is that now a part
of the Bush Doctrine too?
As long as Bush's fear-inflated poll numbers are high, this
war will continue to expand into country after country, unless
Bush's desire to turn the world into an American Empire is
stopped dead in its tracks. The American public has been told
flat out the War on Terror may never end in our lifetimes,
and still there is no outcry. If there is an afterlife, George
Orwell is looking upon us with contempt, wishing he had never
wasted his time trying to warn us of wars without end.
On to
Part Two
|
