'The Bush Doctrine' Leaps Into History
Wage first-strike war to achieve peace: The consequences could be enormous.
By JAMES P. PINKERTON
Editorial
The Los Angeles Times
October 8, 2002
Most television networks chose not to cover President Bush's speech Monday. There would be no real news, they were told. Indeed, the White House wanted to low-key the talk--perhaps to avoid accusations that it was wagging the dog in regard to the midterm elections. And so the networks were eager to carry on with their commercial programming. But long after "King of Queens" and "Fear Factor" are forgotten, people will remember 2002 as the year that Bush propounded a new doctrine for the world, one likely to define the next century.
To be sure, much of Bush's speech was devoted to the question of "why now?" for Saddam Hussein. As the president said, "By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique." But he also said, "For the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him ... we cannot wait for the final proof." First-strike war to achieve peace--that's a new doctrine for America.
That's the Bush Doctrine. It's likely to be remembered right up there with other doctrines that received relatively little notice when first propounded but that proved to be vastly consequential in the fullness of time.
For example, the Monroe Doctrine wasn't even enunciated in a speech, and the word "doctrine" wasn't used at all. It was first expressed in a written message to Congress on Dec. 2, 1823. President James Monroe, noting the anti-Spanish revolutions throughout South America and worrying about future interventions, declared that it was "impossible" for European powers to "extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness." At the time, the world cared little about what the U.S. had to say. But over the next century, as American power burgeoned, the Monroe Doctrine became Uncle Sam's rationale for dozens of military interventions in Latin America.
Similarly, the Truman Doctrine had modest beginnings. It was simply a speech that President Harry Truman gave to Congress on March 12, 1947, in which he said the U.S. must help Greece and Turkey resist communist encroachment. At the end he added: "I believe it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
Truman hadn't reached this conclusion right away. For nearly two years after World War II, his administration had seesawed on the role of the U.S. in the world. But the Truman Doctrine of aiding anti-communist regimes was followed up, three months later, by the Marshall Plan for aiding in the reconstruction of Europe.
Those initiatives were the beginnings of the Cold War, punctuated by hot wars in Korea and Vietnam--in addition to bidding wars for the loyalties of so-called nonaligned countries.
And so it is with Bush. It is only gradually becoming obvious that he has a grand plan for the world. After the Sept. 11 attacks, he mostly focused on Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar. And in military operations that commenced a year and a day ago, the U.S. routed the Taliban from Afghanistan.
But beginning with his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush escalated. He unleashed the phrase "axis of evil," referring not to Al Qaeda or the Taliban but to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Then came his speech at West Point in June in which he called for "preemptive action" against potential enemies.
The world is paying attention. The stock market goes down when Bush talks about war, even as oil prices rise. The Russians have been making noises that they wish to apply the doctrine to neighboring Georgia. And speculation abounds that others--China, India, Israel--will use the Bush precedent to settle their own scores.
And that's the point: Any action generates a reaction, not always foreseen. Indeed, one of the cornerstones of world security--limits on the number of nuclear weapons--could soon fall victim to the feeling among Third World nationalists that only weapons of mass destruction offer safety from the Pentagon. Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, almost certainly the next president of Brazil, suggested to a Rio de Janeiro audience on Sept. 13 that countries such as Brazil had been foolish to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Lula, of course, is a leftist critic of the U.S. and its economic system. But if the U.S. has its nonnegotiable doctrines, other countries will have theirs as well.
It may be that the Bush administration has foreseen the danger of a world in which other countries feel emboldened to attack enemies and build up their arsenals. It also may be that Bush is intoxicated with the thought of a doctrine in his name. Either way, future historians will be studying his words closely, recognizing that something huge began in 2002.
___________________________________________
James P. Pinkerton writes a column for Newsday in New York.
latimes.com |
