Posted on 04/25/2004 1:14:41 PM PDT by Robert Teesdale
Running with the President
Part II: Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine
by Rod D. Adams
Many have called the recent U.S. invasion of Iraq a “neoconservative war.” However, neoconservatives in the Bush administration are not Cabinet members but second-tier appointees. Is it plausible to believe they could compel President Bush and his Cabinet to declare a war?
“The neocons in and out of government are quite influential,” says Colorado State University political science professor Robert Lawrence, “although in the final analysis the president makes the decision.”
He claims the Iraq war follows logically from the so-called “Bush Doctrine,” first presented by President Bush in a June 2002 speech at West Point, in which he stated the United States should no longer wait to be attacked but should strike first. This announcement marked a major change in U.S. policy, according to Lawrence, since for decades our strategy was to deter foreign aggression by the threat of retaliation.
“After 9/11 everything changed,” Lawrence says. “The previous doctrines of containment and nuclear deterrence would not work in regard to terrorists and rogue nations, because terrorists cannot be deterred by the promise of retaliation since they are ready to give their lives for their cause.” He adds, “Terrorists have no national assets that we can threaten, and some of the terrorists may be crazy, from our perspective.”
The Bush Doctrine of “preventive war and first strike” is compatible with what Lawrence says the neocons believe: “The U.S. has the responsibility to remove much evil, and the times are right for such action because the U.S. dominates the world in a way no other nation ever has.”
Those calling the Iraq invasion a “neoconservative war” claim neoconservatives promoted the war for over a decade. Joseph Cirincione with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace traces the Bush Doctrine to the days following the first Iraq war. Neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz’s office of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy wrote the 1992 “Defense Policy Guidance” document, which called for a second Iraq war and preemption. When it was leaked to the press, the document was widely criticized as extremist, but its essence is now official doctrine.
Numerous journalists have pointed out ideological connections between neoconservative statements, the Bush Doctrine and the decision to invade Iraq.
In 1996, neoconservatives William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and Donald Kagan wrote “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy.” This Foreign Affairs article stated, “America should pursue a vision of benevolent hegemony.”
In 1997, two dozen neoconservatives formed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC, newamericancentury.org). PNAC’s statement of principles says, “The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.” Among the 25 signatories to the statement are Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.
That same year, PNAC lobbied House Speaker Newt Gingrich to call for an invasion of Iraq. In January 1998, PNAC wrote President Clinton, urging the removal of Saddam’s regime. In May 1998, PNAC wrote Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, asking for a strong U.S. military presence in the region and readiness to protect U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf.
In 2000, PNAC published its plans for Iraq in Rebuilding America’s Defenses and Present Dangers. In the latter publication, Elliott Abrams wrote, “Our military strength and willingness to use it will remain a key factor in our ability to promote peace.” He also called for a preemptive “toppling of Saddam Hussein.”
Immediately after 9/11, neoconservatives called for invasion of Iraq, according to Patrick Buchanan. On Sept. 12, William Bennett said on CNN that we are in “a struggle between good and evil,” the evil nations being Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and China. On Sept. 15, Wolfowitz argued for attacking Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Forty neoconservatives wrote to President Bush on Sept. 20 instructing him on how to conduct the war on terror and stating that not attacking Iraq “will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.”
As early as May 2002, the Defense Department’s Near East-South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA) concurred: “We are going to invade Iraq and we are going to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are going to have bases in Iraq. This was all a given,” according to Karen Kwiatkowski, a member of NESA at the time.
The following month, President Bush gave his West Point speech, making preemptive war official doctrine. Three months later, the “National Security Strategy of the United States” formalized this doctrine and added a new item: The U.S. is willing to act alone or with ad hoc coalitions when alliances resist U.S. plans for preemptive attacks.
The neoconservative goal, according to Lawrence, is to democratize the Middle East.
“If the neocon perspective is successful,” he says, “it would represent one of the greatest extensions of one nation’s political views over others in history.”
• • • • •
Rod Adams teaches philosophy at Front Range Community College and logic and composition at Colorado State University
This is Part II of a three-part series from the Fort Collins area independent newspaper, the Rocky Mountain Bullhorn.
Click here to read Part I, including some excellent followup commentary by JasonC.
The original thread can be read here. I expect that my comments will be covered in the third and final installment.
Thanks to Bullhorn, the publisher of the paper, for his gracious permission to republish the articles in their entirety here on Free Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.