Bush War Doctrine

[Abalone]

I found this recently and thought is sounded familiar.

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in
danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were of
Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it
was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest - why then it was national
honor that had been insulted." Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950)





Preemption vs. Prevention: A Short Primer on the Bush War Doctrine

April 16, 2003

"[A]s a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against...emerging threats before they are fully formed....[W]e will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against...terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

National Security Strategy of the United States September 2002

[Boedy]

So you think we should let them attack us before we act?

[ampersat]

The War on Terror is similar to the War on Drugs in several respects:
- the specified enemy is an inanimate object or concept that in and of itself will not fight back.
- the association with the enemy, no matter how tenuous, gives government carte blanche to pursue almost any course of action it so chooses.
- there is no point at which we can declare the war to have been won. Terror will never sit down at the table and sign the Articles of Surrender.
- by selecting the "enemy" in this way, it is almost unconscionable to be against the war.

It is more important than ever before that we examine the fall of the Roman Empire and draw parallels to our own society's current state. It has been said that history does not repeat itself, it rhymes. With all that is going on today, I feel like we're coming to the end of a stanza and it's inevitable rhyme will be upon us.

[DanS]

We have had no such attacks on our soil since

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, it's not like they were happening every month before Bush was elected. Are you sure you're seeing a cause and effect there, Thump?

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Thumper:
More than 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. We have had no such attacks on our soil since. Thank God (if he exists) for George Bush.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yippee, Americans are dying on foreign soil instead. It's so much better.

When they strike here again, Bush won't stop them (again).

[Hoosier Daddy]

Isn't the internet great. Selective hearing/reading is such a wonderful thing.....

Bottom line, if you're pro, you're pro, if you're con, you're con. Period end of argument.

[trollin4trout]

Maybe we should just roll over like Spain and be blackmailed for the rest of our lives

[crabbait]

Let's stay non-partisan in this discussion no matter how difficult that may be.

No Bush bashing.....no Bush supporting, etc.

[Woody]

Let's see here, the title is "Bush War Doctrine" Looks to me like the original poster was looking for a fight, otherwise known as trolling.

Just say no to politics on IFISH

edit: How could you possible stay "non-partisan on this. Again, I refer you to the title of the thread.

[ 03-16-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Woody ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Is'nt NON-Partisan and oxy-moron?

[ 03-16-2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Thank God (if he exists) for George Bush.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">
Thumper you crack me up!

[Hogback]

Combined with Amperstat's reply I mistakenly looked at it historically. It is interesting how societies seem to do the same things over and over again for the same reasons.
It's easy to stay non partisan, read the history of each issue before making up your mind. Then you can argue a position instead of a political party or personality. Political hacks on both sides rely on people reacting emotionally instead of rationally.
On another post the "war debate" degenerated into childish name calling and petty bickering instead of thoughtful fact based debate, for this reason history repeats itself.
Randy

[ 03-16-2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Hogback ]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Great leaders true to thier convictions make the tough decisions without wavering. We are fortunate to have a strong leader. If Spain pulls thier troops from Iraq due to the recent attack in Madrid, it will prove how spineless many world leaders are. Some would rather negotiate than eliminate. There should be no negotiation. How do you negotiate with those who's only purpose in life is to kill. Elimination is the only option. The fight has been taken to the enemy. It will end with thier surrender or death.

Another strong leader:

Winston Churchill 1940

"We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets. We shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"

"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and it's Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say 'This was their finest hour'.".

"...if we fail, then the whole world - including the United States - including all that we have known and cared for - will sink into the abyss of a new 'Dark Age', made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.".

[DanS]

Some would rather negotiate than eliminate.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Some believe that eliminating terrorists isn't a reasonable undertaking.

Winston Churchill was talking about fighting an organized military. It's not quite the same.

I'm not saying Bush is right or wrong in his approach........just that there are other ways of achieving the desired goal, which is peace.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Originally posted by DanS:
Some believe that eliminating terrorists isn't a reasonable undertaking.

Winston Churchill was talking about fighting an organized military. It's not quite the same.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I have to agree that eliminating all terrorists is not likely to happen.

You are right about terrorists and an organized military not being the same. But that speech by Winston Churchill has such a feeling of determination. I think that Bush has that same kind of determination when it comes to protecting the United States of America.

I find it hard to believe that there is peaceful solution. These people will not stop until they are gone. It is not just our military that they hate. They hate America. They don't want McDonalds in thier neighborhood. They don't want to see a Pepsi billboard. They want death to the infidels. And Americans are number one on thier list.

I guess if all US corporations closed down all of thier operations where they did not want us. If we brought home all of our military where they did not want us. If we just asked them what they want us to do so that they will not come after us.

Our economy would collapse. Foreign governments would collapse. And they would keep killing. That's what they want.

A peaceful solution would require negotiation. Negotiation gives legitimacy to both parties. There is nothing legitimate about killers.

If there is a peacful solution I would like to hear it. It would get my vote.

[Thumper]

There is nothing legitimate about killers. [/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well said, HMB. Very well said.

[crabbait]

Lest we forget: The war in Iraq is not now and never was about terrorists. No Iraqi terrorists have ever attacked the U.S.. There never was an "Iraqi threat".

We are fighting a war in Iraq because we were misinformed and mislead. There is no other legitimate reason.

We are still "involved" in Iraq because there is no way to become "disinvolved". This is not likely to change in the forseeable future.

Just the facts.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

The main drive for the war in Iraq was WMD's. Those have not been found in the quantaties that we thought. But remember that even the UN believed that Iraq had these weapons.

Terrorism was plan B. Unfortunately those guys found out we were not going to leave. As we took steps to provide better protection for our troops the terrorists changed thier tactics. They are now after easy targets. Innocent civilians and aid workers. It seems like a mess in Iraq because it is. But this is no Vietnam. We are in military control. The majority of the population is glad sadaam is gone. They just want us to leave asap.

The next year will see dramatic changes for the better. It will happen fast. The majority of the people of Iraq want democracy. They don't hate us. They just don't like looking at a foreign army patrolling thier streets. You can't blame them for that. When we hand over token power in June. I hope that we will look the other way while the Iraqi's rid themselves of the leftover sadaam remnants that we are currently working with because we had no choice.

[ 03-16-2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: HeavyMetal BankFisherman ]

[ampersat]

Well stated, Crabbait. First it was about WMDs. When the WMDs weren't found, it was about the injustices that Saddam was perpetrating against his own people. Now it's been further generalized to "terror". You can't be perceived as being "pro terror", can you?

Every great president has a war that defines his presidency. The problem is that Bush "created" a war in hopes that it would make his presidency great. Frat boys.

[Silver Hilton]

Ampersat, I don't think that's fair to Bush. I don't think he cares about making a name for himself, I think he's trying to do the right thing, as he sees it. It's pretty well documented that he and his team have long thought that Saddam needed to go, and it does look like they engineered a way to have that happen. But I tend to think he did what I view to be the wrong thing for what were, from his perspective, wholesome reasons.

Now, as to how he let his team go about selling it, well, there he's got some 'splainin' to do.

[corkyking]

HMBF: “The fight has been taken to the enemy. It will end with thier surrender or death.”
“even the UN believed that Iraq had these weapons. “

Do you think that any president would have acted differently??
Do you recall Sadman huissein saying that there were no WMD.??
Of course he is a liar and sadist but we were on the course to war regardless.

What about Saudi Arabia? Most commentators believe that SA is the root of the evil. If you remember Edi Amin and know that he’s living well in SA you’ll have and idea what SA is all about.

If we are going to go after terrorists we aren't going to do much good in Iraq trying to protect ourselves from a bunch of kids wrapped in dynamite.

[happybrew]

I'm starting to think this war started as much because of Saddam Hussein's incompetence as from anyone else's. I think he was convinced his minions were working on them, so he didn't want inspectors. His minions were socking away the money he gave them for it so they could get away from the lunatic someday. The comm traffic from the scientists to the government about these fictional weapons, combined with the fact that Hussein DID harbor terrorists, and have connections to terrorism in Israel, led the Bush Administration to act. Had Hussein been a smart guy and either kept his people happy, or realized that his scientists were lying to him, this whole thing could have been avoided.

happybrew

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Originally posted by happybrew:
I'm starting to think this war started as much because of Saddam Hussein's incompetence as from anyone else's. I think he was convinced his minions were working on them, so he didn't want inspectors. His minions were socking away the money he gave them for it so they could get away from the lunatic someday. The comm traffic from the scientists to the government about these fictional weapons, combined with the fact that Hussein DID harbor terrorists, and have connections to terrorism in Israel, led the Bush Administration to act. Had Hussein been a smart guy and either kept his people happy, or realized that his scientists were lying to him, this whole thing could have been avoided.

happybrew

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Correct!

[Jimmy Carl Black]

Lest we forget: The war in Iraq is not now and never was about terrorists. No Iraqi terrorists have ever attacked the U.S.. There never was an "Iraqi threat".

We are fighting a war in Iraq because we were misinformed and mislead. There is no other legitimate reason.

We are still "involved" in Iraq because there is no way to become "disinvolved". This is not likely to change in the forseeable future.

Just the facts.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

It's pretty clear what the (ulterior) motives are here in this war (which one? you tell me). You look at who benefited in money and power and you'll solve this riddle. Hint: you don't have to look far; no complex chain of command going on here. You could find Osama Bin Laden and Oliver North loading 100 nuclear weapons into a 747 in Baghdad and you wouldn't convince me, this war is a distraction in the greatest sense of the word. Anybody see the Simpsons the other night where they flashback to the 80's to show that Newsweek cover with the headline "Why America Loves Saddam Hussein?" It's just one bogus move after the other. 20 years from now we'll have dudes from the Northern Alliance bombing L.A. I'm NOT going for it. Politicians don't go into the business to do the right thing. They act on the same instincts that got them to whatever position they are in.

[Jimmy Carl Black]

I'll see you guys later, the homeland security police are taking me away.

[Hogback]

Amp
Are you kidding? Most Americans don't know recent history. Don't attempt to confuse them with the facts, their minds are made up. To quote a great American, "It's like Deja Vu all over again".
Randy

[Abalone]

Originally posted by Boedy:
So you think we should let them attack us before we act?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I for one believe this approach will only Multiply our enemies as spelled out by Josheph Schumpner.

[Thumper]

More than 3,000 Americans died on 9/11. We have had no such attacks on our soil since. Thank God (if he exists) for George Bush.

[7066]

Is there any place to escape this stuff?? There are plenty of web sites and chat areas for these subjects does it have to be here???

[Freakwater]

7066,

Try the no-clicky method.

[Amahnee]

Did the holocaust take place? Were six million jews exterminated? Didn't the world say we'll never let that happen again? Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Basically the same thing except not as publicized. We did the world and the Iraqi people a favor by freeing them from a monster. WMD's or NO WMD's. I'm glad and proud to have a president who will stand up for this country and others who are not strong or smart enough to stand up for themselves. I would be embarrassed to live in another country whose leaders just looked the other way or thought the problem will just go away thinking the problem is like a fire that burns itself out.

[Thumper]

What amazes me is the incredible incompetence of Saddam Hussein. The whole world knows that he had (note --- "had") WMD. Heck, he used them on his own people. The UN knew and documented that he had an active chemical/biological warfare program way back in the early 1990s. The Bush folks didn't lie about former WMD. Those weapons were a well-documented fact.

Now along comes George Bush. He believes, based in part upon some screwy intelligence, that the WMD remained and that Iraq was a near-term threat to his neighbors (principally Israel). So he goes after Saddam, one logical step at a time. Very predictable. Bush doesn't kid around. Like him or hate him, he does what he says he will do. Simple guy.

So why didn't Saddam go before the UN, or the US Congress, and plead his innocence? Offer to open the gates to any and all inspections, no restrictions. He didn't do that, so he basically committed his family and government to absolute and total destruction.

Not a smart thing to do. :depressed:

[Abalone]

Originally posted by Woody:
Let's see here, the title is "Bush War Doctrine" Looks to me like the original poster was looking for a fight, otherwise known as trolling.

Just say no to politics on IFISH

edit: How could you possible stay "non-partisan on this. Again, I refer you to the title of the thread.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Not really:

" This is in fact the Bush War Doctrine as stated by G.W. Himself on National Television right after
911 " Remember when he said if you aint with us you are against us ?

It was actually written by PAUL WOLFOWITZ Deputy Secretary of Defense and presented to G. Bush senior at the end of the First war in Iraq. G. Bush senior rejected it.

If you read it and give it some thought it resonates with the Statement by Josheph Schumpner.

This is a Democracy is it not ?

There is a 50/50 split in this country on how we are fighting this war and this is a good thing.

When I read the thing on the Roman empire It seemed to hit the nail on the head as far as I am concerned. If you don't agree with me that's fine but I certainly did not post it to stir up an arguement.

Does this mean that I don't agree with what we are doing over there ? Not really.
Are we doing enough.

“We announce the good news for the Muslims in the world
that the strike of the black wind of death, the expected strike
against America, is now at its final stage -- 90 percent ready
-- and it is coming soon, by God’s will.”

I hope so but I doubt it.

We need the full force of the U.S.A. military and then some to finish this.
As time goes by and the war gets nastier, even the most skeptical Americans will be willing to fight.

This isn't Viet Nam. The North Vietnamese never Attacked the U.S.A. otherwise that war might have ended a little differently.

Americans are slow to react sometimes, but react we do.

Sorry if my post has made you upset but this war is far from over.

Brace yourself !

[ 03-18-2004, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Abalone ]

[Woody]

I stand by my statement. Whether I agree or disagree doesn't matter and is not the point. The point is; The post IS political, and the response in predictable. In my opinion it is a of waste of bandwidth on an otherwise great website.

Oh, sure. Some of you may say, "just don't click on political topics". Somehow, I'm drawn to them. It's like passing a traffic accident without looking. I know a lot of you know what I mean.

Like it or not, politics drives wedges between people. I will admit there are people that I just don't want to meet because of the opinions they have expressed here. Is that what Ifish is supposed to be about? I don't think so.

[ 03-18-2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Woody ]

[happybrew]

Yup, he's a dumb guy. No doubt about it. I'm wondering why, after the first time we trounced him, we didn't realize just how dumb he is, beam footage of the first Gulf War onto his television set so he'd THINK he was being invaded, then walk in without firing a shot after he and his staff ran away! It would have saved a lot of money! [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

happybrew

[Thumper]

In my opinion it is a of waste of bandwidth on an otherwise great website ...Oh, sure. Some of you may say, "just don't click on political topics". Somehow, I'm drawn to them. It's like passing a traffic accident without looking. because of the opinions they have expressed here. Is that what Ifish is supposed to be about? I don't think so.

Woody --- I have to laugh. Lessee, the post is a waste of bandwidth but you just have to look cause you can't help yourself and yup! it is really bad and you are upset that you did look.

[Woody]

Woody --- I have to laugh. Lessee, the post is a waste of bandwidth but you just have to look cause you can't help yourself and yup! it is really bad and you are upset that you did look.

Well, Jack you got me. Still it bugs me, this is a fishing board. I'll just try not to look next time

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Lets give Paul some credit for being the inspiration for the Bush Doctrine. In fact I think he should be tapped for the presidency after Bush finishes his two term limit. Paul Wolfowitz for President with Richard Perle as his Vice President. They are viable candidates. They are not criminals. And thier patriotism is without question.

Paul and Richard are the true architects of todays American foriegn policy. We are fortunate to have a president that is brave enough to implement it. And we need to continue on this path regardless of the setbacks along the way.

We are an Empire. A new kind of Empire. But we still run the world. Our influence is everywhere. And if we all want to continue to live the good life here in America. America is going to have to be involved in every crook and cranny in the world. Wherever something is going on, we need to be there. Involved and taking charge if necessary. We are in control. We are so far in the lead that it makes sense to double it. Putting any doubt aside.

We will never fall like the Romans because of people dedicated to the Unted States of America and everything it stands for.

Paul Wolfowitz <font color="red">1992</font>

Paul Wolfowitz, under secretary of defense for policy (the Pentagon's third-highest ranking civilian), takes the lead in drafting an internal set of military guidelines, called a "Defense Planning Guidance," which is routinely prepared every few years by the Defense Department.

Wolfowitz's draft argues for a new military and political strategy in a post-Cold War world. Containment, it says, is a relic of the Cold War. America should talk loudly, carry a big stick, and use its military power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). And if America has to act alone, so be it.

Key Points/Excerpts from the Wolfowitz Doctrine:

The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."


Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being <font color="red">Iraq</font> and North Korea.


If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.

There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.

The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.

The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.