John McCain and the Bush Doctrine
Kevin Sullivan on John McCain’s view on the war on terrorism: “While the McCain Doctrine seems to prioritize the hunting, capturing and/or killing of Jihadists, it doesn’t seem to lay out a broader strategy for reducing terrorism as a viable avenue for would be terrorists.”
Adding: “Perhaps I’m shellacking a dead horse, but I believe pretty firmly that the Bush Doctrine is sound policy in theory, despite its application errors. Cutting off the state sponsorship of terror, isolating those regimes that continue to bankroll it, and deposing those regimes that refuse to cease in the practice or respond to diplomatic pressures makes good sense. It makes a heck of a lot more sense than chasing down every person on the planet with an RPG and a gripe. ”
I basically disagree with Kevin on this subject. The reason is that the Bush doctrine is both too big and too small in scope at the same time. It’s too big with regards to countries you may have to use force against. It’s too small in scope with regards to other means to fight and win this war. Propaganda should be part of it. Economic incentives should be part of it. Political help should be part of it, and so on.
You should just show people the stick, you should also show them the carrot… and give it when they do what you want.
Invest in the Middle East, in Middle Eastern governments, business, cities and neighborhoods and you’ll probably see Jihadis having a harder time recruiting people.
Actually I think there are a few different problems with the Bush doctrine that haven’t really been mentioned.
One, that we can’t apply it in an evenhanded fashion because we’re allied with some of the states that by rights should be attacked under this doctrine (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan.) That makes is completely impossible to avoid the negative propaganda among Islamists, because we don’t appear to be acting on principle.
Second, the concept of preemptive war that forms part of the Bush doctrine is too fallible, as in the case of Iraq (no WMD, therefore no justification for preventing an existential threat- and since intel is never perfect, we’ll never be able to get around these mistakes- it’s like the argument against the death penalty because sometimes convictions turn out to be wrong.)
And third, sometimes regime change from a govt that supports terrorism doesn’t result in a new regime that will be any better or one that brings stability to the region. Leaving behind a vacuum, as we’ve seen in Iraq, can be worse in terms of the instability and terrorist haven that results.
As for the "Monroe Doctrine" approach, the problem there is similar to what we’ve always run up against in Africa- corruption and inability to get aid to the people without a lot of waste and fraud. I’m not opposed to this being part of the solution, but it’s much easier said than done.
bravo, Christine.
it is so refreshing to read the opinion of the conservative poster, which is not the mirror image of the GOP propaganda
Thanks, sashal- though for some reason, whenever I get a compliment like that or see some other conservative complimented for thoughtfulness, I’m reminded of how some blacks feel a bit put off when they’re praised for being articulate.
Except some of us don’t buy the premise that Iraq was a preemptive war, but a conclusion to the "1st" gulf war. The man invaded another country for the purpose of annexation. He thumbed his nose at the world at every opportunity and he turned our "sanctions" against him into one of the worlds biggest profit centers, ever. And all the while he let his people die because it made the rest of the world look guilty. And really, didn’t letting Hitler off the hook the first time not teach us anything.
It’s too small in scope with regards to other means to fight and win this war. Propaganda should be part of it.
Michael, its pretty tough when your own news organizations keep publishing the techniques. And propaganda is being used, we just have to wade through it all to get to the "real story".
tonto: I actually agree with you about those other reasons to justify the Iraq invasion (so my feelings about it are mixed.) But still, Bush himself stated the doctrine of preemption- and on that I now disagree with him.