Aftermath: The Bush Doctrine [Barf Alert]

NY Times Op-Ed Page ^ | 4-13-03 | NY Times Editorial Staff

[Pharmboy]

After the three-week military campaign that dispatched the regime of Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration may be tempted to unleash American forces against the next fire-snorting dragon down the line, whether in Syria, Iran or North Korea. While President Bush has every right to be pleased by the victory in Iraq, he should not confuse the military achievement for a validation of his doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

We did not like the combative doctrine when it was formally unveiled last September because it seemed to walk away from America's historical inclination to work with other nations to preserve the peace and to rely on force only when its security was directly threatened. The overthrow of Mr. Hussein does not make it seem any more valid.

We do not belittle the achievement of American fighting forces. But their victory was the one element of this campaign that was never in doubt — just as there is no doubt that American soldiers could be toppling statues in Damascus, Tehran or even Pyongyang if they were ordered to do it. The trouble is that each of these cases has its own complexities, its own consequences. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to world affairs, and even if there were, it is far from certain that Iraq is a template. The situation there remains chaotic, and it will take a long time to judge whether American intervention will bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq or improve the situation in the Middle East.

So far, the hawks in the administration have not publicly suggested a sequel to Iraq, even if there have been warnings to other malefactors contemplating weapons of mass destruction to "draw the appropriate lesson" from the war. We have no doubt that the administration would far prefer that Iraq proved to be the catalyst for velvet revolutions across the Middle East and beyond.

The yearning to right wrongs has a noble tradition in American foreign policy, and few could oppose those portions of the Bush doctrine that would extend the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to the far corners of the globe. Unfortunately, these goals were overshadowed by an arrogant, go-it-alone stance and an aggressive claim to the right to use pre-emptive action against threatening states.

For many people and nations, the way the Bush administration went after Saddam Hussein confirmed fears raised by the doctrine. That is one reason why the move to war drew so much opposition around the world, and why this page urged the administration to pursue its goals in Iraq within an international framework. A doctrine that purports to spread happiness, but ends up spreading resentment, is not working, no matter how many statues come tumbling down. That is why it is especially important now to show that the United States also has the confidence and wisdom to sheath its sword until it is really needed.

[Pharmboy]

The overthrow of Mr. Hussein does not make it seem any more valid.

What're they smokin' on West 43rd Street?

How dare they continue to give advice to this administration when they haven't been right about essentially ANYTHING in the last 30 years.

They are as irrelevant as the French.

[Support Free Republic]

DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Puppage]

While President Bush has every right to be pleased by the victory in Iraq, he should not confuse the military achievement for a validation of his doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

The WORLD has the right to be "pleased"...even YOU.

Pre-emptive strikes...let's review class....12 YEARS, 17 UNENFORCED RESOLUTIONS.Hardly pre-emptive

[sauropod]

Right up there with the SanFran Chronicle and the L.A. Slimes.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

BUSH Doctrine =

'Bringing DEMOCRACY to the Common Man everywhere is Everyone's Answer'

..........W-O-R-K-S...............

[Pharlap]

Those on the Left would rather see a more dangerous world in which they hold power than a safer world in which they did not hold power. The best examples of this reality are: the unrelenting and continuing attack on President Bush by those on the Left whose sole agenda is to try and regain the White House in 2004, and the total lack of any condemnation from the Left of President Bush's predecessor's incursion into Serbia, his approval of strategic and tactical plans that led to the unrelenting distruction of civilian lives and infrastructure, and his seeking and obtaining the paper authority to do in Iraq what President Bush had the courage to do. Again, for the Left the issue is NOT one of a SAFER WORLD, it is, and always has been, the acquisition and retension of POLITICAL POWER

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I see in the morning's paper that the two remaining Axis of Evil states are politely inquiring about talks with Mr. Bush.
Ahhh...what a difference three weeks can make.

[azjatojarhd1ea]

"...wisdom to sheath its sword until it is really needed."

What the NYSlimes means is "until the liberal left thinks it is really needed". Problem with that is they still won't admit that it was "really needed" in Iraq. They're like drunk detractors up in the stands yelling at the football coach, whose team is winning 50 to 0, that he needs to change his game plan. No sober person takes them seriouly.

[rvoitier]

Pre-emption. This will be the left's mantra as long as there are trees to print their papers or electomagnetic fields to broadcast their words.

If not for 9/11 and Iraq's connections to Al-Qada, there would not have been an obvious need to liberate the Iraqi people.

This was a war of self-defense, NYTimes. Get over it.

[LarryM]

These turds had no problem with Clinton's rape of Yugoslavia. What a bunch of hypocrites!

[Callahan]

Translation: We here at the NY Times refuse to learn from our mistakes.

[William McKinley]

More like:

New York Times: [Barf Alert]

[TomB]

We (at the NY Times) do not belittle the achievement of American fighting forces.

BWHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH**********SNORT********HAAAAAHAAAAAA********COUGH,COUGH*********IEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!

Sigh, that was great! Who wrote that?

[Cicero]

I'm beginning to think maybe Howell Raines should be next on the list.

[AFPhys]

The NYSlimes is attempting to go for the world record in the category, "Being wrong the most often by a major newspaper"

[Timm]

The yearning to right wrongs has a noble tradition in American foreign policy, and few could oppose those portions of the Bush doctrine that would extend the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to the far corners of the globe. Unfortunately, these goals were overshadowed by an arrogant, go-it-alone stance and an aggressive claim to the right to use pre-emptive action against threatening states.

What is it with these a**holes??? Few could oppose extending freedom and democracy to Syria or Iran-- but only if France, Germany, Russia, and China agree?! That's what passes for conscience from the left these days.

[Natural Law]

The important thing to remember is that Iraq is not the end game. We have embarked on a war against state sponsored terrorism. Iraq is but one more chapter. Liberation and WMDs are windfall benefits. The war will not be over until terrorists cannot afford to be seen in daylight or buy a single bullet anywhere on the planet.