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.
