Bush Doctrine Goes Beyond Making the World Safe From Terrorism Term Paper
- Length: 3 pages
- Subject: Military
- Type: Term Paper
- Paper: #31119667
Excerpt from Term Paper :
Bush and Iraq
According to the original reasoning behind Bush's war on Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime posed a terrorist threat to the free world, however (subsequent to evidence emerging in the press that this threat was exaggerated, if not fabricated) in more recent statements the Bush administration has strongly implied that the war was justified not on the basis of freeing the world of terrorists but because Hussein was a brutal dictator and Iraq needed to be freed from his rule. The idea that the war on terror is actually a war to bring democracy to the world is one which may coincide somewhat with the controversial ideas espoused by Fukuyama, who taught that History (which is to say the evolution of society, not the happening of events) would end when all nations were converted to western liberal democracies and engaged in the global consumerist culture. Perhaps, some might argue, the Bush doctrine goes well beyond making the world safe from terrorism, and seeks to fulfill Fukuyama's vision of 'the last man' by bringing western liberal democracy to all the continents of the world. There is certainly evidence that Bush wishes his aggressive war-making to be perceived in this way, however, such there is no evidence that his actions actually support the bringing of democracy to Iraq, or any other nation. In fact, the actions of the Bush administration seem more contrary to democratic sentiment than supportive.
Originally, it will be remembered, Bush did not speak consistently of bringing democracy as the primary goal. The invasion of Iraq was justified by the theory, to which the Bush administration attributed absolute surety, that Hussein was stocking weapons of mass destruction, and that he was in league with the terrorists who had perpetrated the September 11th terrorist attacks. Even after it became evident that weapon of mass destruction did not exist on the ground, Bush originally seemed prepared to continue the charade of their existence. A government report, which admits to finding nothing but "clues" (which in most cases are little more than burnt files or empty basements which could be used to house weapons), subsequent to the war explained that the disparity was due to the fact that "Empirical reality on the ground is, and has always been, different from intelligence judgments that must be made under serious constraints of time, distance and information" (Kay) One tends to believe that if bringing democracy to all the nations of the world was Bush's actual goal, that this would both be stated more directly from the beginning (rather than hiding behind the pretense of destroying weapons of mass destruction. It also seems reasonable that if this were the goal that Bush would be more consistent in his approach to "rogue" nations and treat all homicidal dictators with equal courage and aggression. When nations were show In reality, the Bush administration deals quite peaceably with many dictators.
One argument suggesting that Bush was in fact driven by concern for the democratic status in Iraq depends on the fact that there were, actually, no weapons of mass destruction and that the Bush Administration had obfuscated this fact only to later suggest that the war was driven by the urge to "liberate" Hussein's people. "Whatever officials and apologists may say about it in retrospect, the belief in Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" was the only compelling reason, really, to have fought this war. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and his toppling is welcome. But the same could be said of North Korea's Kim Jong-il," (Kaplan) This argument, somewhat naively, would suggest that since the war was obviously fought for some purpose, and as there was no apparent purpose to this war apart from installing democratic tendencies on foreign soil, that must be the purpose. Why else would so many people be sent to fight and die for a myth? Is it possible that Bush was not aware that the Iraqis did not have these weapons? One of Bush's own security personal reports: "One of the reasons I left was my sense that they were using the intelligence from the C.I.A. And other agencies only when it fit their agenda. They didn't like the intelligence they were getting, and so…