Good Riddance to the Machiavellian "Bush Doctrine"

[metapunditedgy]

Thinking lately (prompted by recent news) about what's at stake in this election...

The "Bush Doctrine" essentially asserts (in its various forms) that America has the right to attack another country if it thinks that country is harboring a threat to the USA. Recently, troubling news stories (barely reported in American media) have come to light indicating that the US has been launching attacks inside Syria and Pakistan. In defense of its actions, the White House has said little to nothing substantive.

As an American, I am offended that my President thinks "No comment" is an acceptable answer to the question, "Why are Americans invading so many different countries and killing their soldiers/civilians?"

What about all the reports that civilians are being killed in these attacks? Does the Bush Doctrine include the right to kill civilians and innocents?

The 9/11 terrorists perceived a threat to their own cultures from America. Are they allowed to invoke the Bush Doctrine to justify their attacks on America and its allies?

The current administration must be morally tone-deaf, in that they see no reason why others should be allowed the same moral privileges that America has. Only America has the right to strike other countries when it feels threatened. No one may attack America if they feel threatened by us. If you attack our civilians, you will be attacked. If we attack your civilians, they must have gotten in the way.

Bottom line: the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the actions of the US military, makes no rational or (especially) moral sense. God forbid that other nations should treat us the way we treat them.

The Bush Doctrine has nothing to do with moral or ethical arguments. Once the pretext of self-defense is stripped away, we are left with the stark truth: what the Bush Doctrine really asserts is that "Our military can do what it wants, because you can't stop us." You know, this almost sounds like "Asymmetric Evangelism." <http://journals.democraticunderground.com/metapunditedgy/11>

Let us hope that the next administration is able to reign in the US military and to address international crises with human decency, respect, and transparency.

Attribution: <http://metapunditedgytheanticlown.blogspot.com/2008/11/good-riddance-to-machiavellian-bush.html>

[ogneopasno]

1. In what respect, Charlie? You mean his world view?

Just had to get that out.

[Oregone]

2. Question: Is the "Bush Doctrine" new?

Or is it just a new name for a pervasive, Americanocentric philosophy which is highly ingrained in the American psyche?

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. ...

:thumbsup:

[ixion]

4. as a policy doctrine it is unique (and disturbed) by postulating

that so-called "pre-emptive" self defense is legal and constitutional, which is most certainly is not.

[metapunditedgy]

5. To make it even worse, if the gov't won't release any details,

no one has the information necessary to verify the gov't's claim of "self-defense."

[Oregone]

6. So...

We have, until now, no precedent of pre-emptive, unilateral military action against other countries (covert or overt), justified by the protection of American lives or interests?

I don't think that is, whatsoever, accurate. And to say that it will die also doesn't seem accurate, even if Obama is elected--a man who advocates the same basic strategy regarding "high valued" targets living in countries we are not yet at war with (Pakistan for example).

Look, Bush put a face and personality upon a long-standing American tradition and philosophy, which advocates that there is no equality in the value of lives and deaths (in comparing American lives to those abroad), and we can do whatever we want, at any time, at any cost, to protect our own. America carries with it a tradition of intervention, which can be seen in Asian, South American and Middle Eastern countries most prominently. The Ends (of safety of American lives/interests) will always justify the Means in America philosophy, so long as they continue to consider their lives more valuable than others. Until there is a massive shift in the world-view of America in general, and they begin to see themselves as part of the global community, rather than an entity running it, the "Bush Doctrine" will always exist. It will just have a different name, and one advocating Americanocentric "freedom", "safety", or whatever other flavor of the day the chosen leader speaks of.

[metapunditedgy]

7. I think there are more issues at stake.

1) By articulating the "Bush Doctrine," Bush has claimed institutional legitimacy for these acts. In the past, governments would often have to deny or cover them up. Bush just says, "Oh, that's the war on terror thing," and many people go along with it.

2) By refusing to release information about the strikes, Bush is denying people the ability to judge the actions of their own government.

3) I think the level of "intervention" has escalated with these Syria and Pakistan attacks. We're not just doing something covert; instead we're crossing borders to bomb people in plain view, and the Bush Doctrine says we don't even care to deny it.

4) Bush is so disliked that he has nothing to lose. What can ordinary citizens do besides vote and protest? The approval numbers are irrelevant.

There used to be a price to pay for this kind of stuff. Now the US gov't just says, "Hell, that's just what we do," and nobody is surprised.

I don't expect the world to change in short order, but I do think (hope) people may start demanding more of the US government.