Democracy and the Bush Doctrine

realclearpolitics.com ^ | January 26, 2005 | Charles R. Kesler

[independentmind]

George W. Bush’s first presidency, devoted to compassionate conservatism and to establishing his own bona fides, lasted less than eight months. On September 11, 2001, he was reborn as a War President. In the upheaval that followed, compassionate conservatism took a back seat to a new, more urgent formulation of the Bush Administration’s purpose.

The Bush Doctrine called for offensive operations, including preemptive war, against terrorists and their abetters—more specifically, against the regimes that had sponsored, encouraged, or merely tolerated any “terrorist group of global reach.” Afghanistan, the headquarters of al-Qaeda and its patron the Taliban, was the new doctrine’s first beneficiary, although the president soon declared Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (to be precise, “states like these, and their terrorist allies”) an “axis of evil” meriting future attention. In his stirring words, the United States would “not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

The administration’s preference for offensive operations reflected a long-standing conservative interest in taking the ideological and military fight to our foes. After all, the Reagan Doctrine had not only indicted Soviet Communism as an evil empire but had endeavored to subvert its hold on the satellite countries and, eventually, on its own people. The Bush Administration’s focus on the states backing the terrorists implied that “regime change” would be necessary, once again, in order to secure America against its enemies. The policy did not contemplate merely the offending regimes’ destruction, however. As in the 1980s, regime change implied their replacement by something better, and the Bush Doctrine soon expanded to accommodate the goal of planting freedom and democracy in their stead.

[independentmind]

Long but good read.

[Noachian]

The administration’s preference for offensive operations reflected a long-standing conservative interest in taking the ideological and military fight to our foes.

The Bush Doctrine has kept this country free from further terrorist attacks, which is something Bush's political enemies fail to point out.

In contrast a "Gore Doctrine" would have been a lawyer's paradise. Both Clinton and Gore saw terrorist acts as criminal acts not as acts of war. Under a Gore administration it's more likely more terrorist attacks would have occured on American soil, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban control, and al-Qaeda would never have suffered the losses it did.

The Bush Doctrine works. That's what American voters need to understand when dealing with Democrats.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"Democracy requires that majorities restrain themselves and practice sometimes disagreeable tasks out of respect for law and for their fellow citizens. These tasks, in turn, require a willingness to trust one’s fellow citizens that comes hard to tribal societies, whose members are not used to trusting anyone who is not at least a cousin."

Respect for law is key, and one of the things Americans take for granted.

I agree the development of democracy in the Middle East will be difficult, but I think the author misses the boat if he thinks the Bush Administration doesn't realize this.

The essence of leadership is casting the vision, without regard to the problems along the way. The goal of the vision is to create the motivation to overcome the problems among all those involved in the change--the American people and the Arabs of the Middle East.

Our ace-in-the-hole, which the author does not mention, are Iraqi expatriates who will vote and return to Iraq. Some have already done so at risk to their lives. Some are running for office--all of them have the vision of what a liberal democracy is.

Excellent, thoughtful article--thanks for posting it.