The man is nothing if not stubborn. Despite the complete failure of his so-called “Bush Doctrine” in Iraq he basically is ready to do it all over again. Raw Story has all the gory details:
“President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy Thursday reaffirming his doctrine of pre-emptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq,” begins a story slated for the front page of Thursday’s Washington Post, RAW STORY has learned.
Here’s a link to Peter Baker’s WaPo story about this further plunge into insanity. Excerpts follow below the fold . . .
The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the U.S.
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the pre-emption policy, saying it “remains the same” and defending it as necessary for a country in the “early years of a long struggle” akin to the Cold War. […]
“If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,” the document continues. “When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize.”
Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush described an Iran with nuclear arms as a “grave threat to the security of the world.”
Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to preemption. “Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful tool, but it’s not something you want to trot out and throw in everybody’s face,” said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error.”
A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be “foolish,” Ullman said, and it would be better to seek other ways to influence its behavior. “I think most states are deterrable.”
Does anyone seriously doubt at this point that Iran is next on the list of targets to be pre-empted? We Americans are ruled by a madman, as besotted by power as any other megalomaniac has ever been, one whose wars of aggression, history informs us, will end very badly for the country he leads.
A simple philosophy for a simpleton: might makes right.
It`s nice that he`s telegraphing his next move. Iranians must be thankful for that.
More seriously, giving full credit to the madness and imbecility that is Ms Rice and Mr. Hadley, I think the announcement was probably trotted out for the base and its gauleiters. Bush is at 33 percent, but if he can get his brownshirts back on board, he can push it poll back to 40 where he is safe. Though I don’t doubt for a minute that he wants to invade Iran, he doesn’t have the logistics to successfully carry it off, even a bombing attack that could leave our 133,000 troops in Iraq at even greater risk than they are now. So I think the parsimonious explanation is domestic politics. The danger he runs is that he may scare the American people more than he revs up the base. How that plays out we won’t know until we see how the media responds to this gambit.
I saw a suggestion that he wants the attacks on the troops: means he can blame Iran for the Iraq debacle as Americans rally around. Completely mad idea and I don’t believe a word of it. Not even Bush and co. could be simultaneously that cynical and that stupid. Could they?
Just as attacks on Iraqi mosques, marketplaces, etc. are currently reported as the work of “insurgents” or “sectarian strife,” why do you think attacks on US gunmen reported as the work of Iran would be believed any less by the public?
In fact, the latter is more believable. The Iraqi Resistance would be shooting themselves in the foot were they to attack religious sites and civilian marketplaces.
With their nation under a brutal occupation of hostile invaders, it is likely that most folks un that situation will put their sectarian and other differences aside and concentrate efforts on the invaders and their collaborators.
Yet anyone who suggests that the US is behind any of these attacks is immediately dismissed and denounced as a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.
As would anyone who suggested that US even would even want attacks on troops, much less engineer them.
Any such attacks would clearly be the work of Iran, and those who suggest differently must be really crazy tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists because America would never do anything like that.
Just yesterday I read via Buzzflash that the Iraqi police had arrested an American mercenary with explosives in his car. I think there’s much more of that kind going on.
‘Bush’ in this case being, as it is in real life, a symbol for the planners and henchmen.
The process of transition from ground to air focus has already begun in Iraq.
As troops are redeployed to nearby bases, the number on the ground there will continue to decrease.
I think that you and Washington may also have some differences in the priority level you would each assign to troop safety. ‘Covert operations’ in Iran have already been underway for some time.
The crusade is not intended to benefit either gunmen or you.
I don’t think Bush is particularly besotted by power compared to the tyrants of history, if he was he could have done far more damage with the military tools at his disposal. He is definitely a narcissistic egomaniac, but he doesn’t seem to have much ambition or drive towards anything, including being the ruler of the world.
It seems more like he is taken along on whatever random schemes advisers convince him are his ideas. They want oil and riches, but they don’t seem to have any interest in actually governing here or abroad, which is a prerequisite for rule-the-world types. I think most of them want to bring the riches home and live wonderful lives without having too much to do with all of those icky foreigners. These are not visionaries, they’re selfish people with minimal empathy who aren’t concerned with the damage they cause while amassing their wealth.
Bush actually isn’t that much different from other expansive bullies in U.S. history except for one principal detail: they were all successful in imposing their wills on other nations, while Bush has been a dismal incompetent failure in everything his administration has attempted.
The only reason other countries still pay attention to Bush is because they suspect he might be unhinged enough to use nukes if they openly laugh at his incompetence.
Well, in response all I can add is that the man literally considers himself to be on a Mission from God. Where I come from that’s considered delusional thinking.
It’s also a pretty good sign that Bush isn’t that bright, which makes him even easier to manipulate.
Here is what I was trying to say. Yes, Bush is a madman, but not in the traditional tyrant sense because he doesn’t have any initiative on his own. He’s more like a nuclear weapon without a delivery system. His advisors (people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Bolton) are the real threat to world security. I know it’s a subtle difference, but those are the people whose credibility needs to be destroyed if we want to stop the insanity. Bush by himself is harmless.
I agree he is a proxy/symbol for the whole rotten bunch of them. It’s a shared delusion that American Military might by itself will get us what we want.
Pat Roberts talk about the poll number 33% for Bush and what he might do to recoup. They felt strongly that an “October Surprise” of an invasion of Iran would pull people right behind him and all the repubs as well.
.
Interview on BBC World News Radio
His magazine :: First Things
As a catholic, my fingers itch to do a damning diary on this “catholic” bs of R.J. Neuhaus and his definition of a theologically justifiable war.
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
Suzanne Malveaux said that the national security strategy was required by the White House to be updated every year and it has been four years since the last update so this is overdue. There are so many ways to interpret that statement that I don’t have a clue what it means, but a good starting point would be determining whether the “every year” thing is a Bush-stated goal or a congressionally-mandated requirement the administration has been ignoring. Does anyone know?