Bush Doctrine, R.I.P.?

Steven M. Warshawsky of the American Thinker makes a powerful and compelling case.

Some highlights:

While President Bush talked of “war,” he did not mobilize the country behind a real war effort. I will leave it to other commentators more knowledgeable than I to analyze the personal, political, and economic reasons why this happened. Whatever the reason, the result is that the United States now lacks the military resources, and homefront commitment, to fight the war Bush originally envisioned. Our military today is one-third smaller than it was during the First Gulf War, and only 40% what it was during the Vietnam War. For a nation of nearly 300 million people, with a gross domestic product of $12 trillion (more than Japan, Germany, Britain, and France combined), the truth of the matter is that our current defense budget ($400 billion or 3.3% of GDP) and troop levels (1.4 million active duty) represent a meager commitment of the nation’s wealth and manpower to fighting international Islamic terrorism, let alone meeting our other military needs. Given the enormous stakes involved in this struggle, President Bush’s failure after 9/11 to mobilize the country for an all-out war against the “radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them” was inexcusable, and undermined the Bush Doctrine from the start.

~ ~ ~

Because of our limited conventional military capabilities, what began as a “war on terror” quickly devolved, after a swift Afghanistan campaign, into a war to liberate Iraq. For the past three years, the focus of the war has been almost exclusively on Iraq, and it appears that dealing with Iraq will occupy the remainder of the Bush presidency. I supported, and continue to support, our efforts to topple Saddam and establish a free, democratic society in Iraq. But the war on terror was supposed to be about much more than simply eliminating Saddam Hussein. It was supposed to be about defeating the “global terror network.” Most urgently, this requires regime change in Iran and Syria.

Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of international Islamic terrorism, and is rapidly developing nuclear weapons of its own. No serious observer doubts that there is a significant risk that Iran will give nuclear weapons to terrorists, or threaten to use them against American interests in retaliation for our anti-terror efforts. As for Syria, that country harbors numerous terrorist organizations, has a stockpile of chemical weapons and is pursuing nuclear and biological WMDs, and is working closely with Iran to oppose American efforts to stop terrorism and spread democracy in the Middle East. Indeed, the evidence is undeniable that Iran and Syria are funneling jihadists and weapons into Iraq to be used against American and allied forces there.

Under the Bush Doctrine, the above facts should lead to one conclusion: Assad and the mullahs must go. Instead, the Bush Administration merely issues harmless warnings to Syria, and imposed limited economic sanctions on that country. More troublingly, President Bush has acquiesced in the Europeans’ feckless efforts to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy....

I have little doubt that Bush “the cowboy” would prefer to take military action against Iran and Syria, but he is hamstrung by an undersized military that lacks the additional resources needed for a successful attack on these two countries. Unfortunately, the time to mobilize the American people for war has long passed. Any proposals to significantly expand the size of the military, whether through a draft or sharply increased recruitment efforts, would be met with fierce political opposition. Sadly, I think it will take another major terrorist attack on American soil before the American people are prepared once again to rally to the defense of their country, as they were ready to do after 9/11. I hope the next president does not let that opportunity slip away as President Bush did. [emphases added]

Pretty much what I've been saying for the past two years, all wrapped up into one devastating package. Though I will add that I think Mr. Warshawsky is overly optimistic about those last couple of points. I think another major terrorist attack on American soil would prompt the opposite reaction from another "rally to the defense of the country." If the partisan snipefest over the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should illustrate anything, it is that the Democrats will use any such 9/11-sized or worse terror strike to indict the entire concept of fighting terrorism in favor of the John Kerry/Euroappeasement approach. And after how the President has allowed the "war effort" to drift into such a state of public relations disrepair, that indictment would get a large public following in the high-tension emotional aftermath of one or more cities in ruins and thousands upon thousands of casualties sitting square on George Bush's watch.

That would also make the next president even more likely to be Hillary Clinton, and I hardly think she would be the most likely candidate to embark upon the crusade for which even GDub didn't have the stomach.

Mr. Warshawsky also touches on the third base of Bush dereliction, his wing and a prayer that one example of functioning Muslim democracy would subvert the entire rest of the Middle East Arab autocracies:

The second major idea behind the President’s new approach to combating terrorism is his vision that a newly democratic Iraq will “set[] an example for people across the Middle East” of self-government, the rule of law, and political and economic freedom. (Fort Hood speech 4/12/05.) Accordingly, the President’s principal war aim is now “to help the Iraqis succeed.” As President Bush explained in his speech from Fort Bragg in June:

“America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend – a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform.”

In that same speech, President Bush explained the logic of his vision:

“[A]s freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.”

The President’s focus on ensuring the success of democracy in Iraq is thus the practical application of his newfound “root causes” theory of terrorism, just as the military conquests of the Taliban and Saddam were the practical application of the original Bush Doctrine.

No one should be misled, however, by the President’s continued use of Bush Doctrine-sounding language. For example, in his Fort Bragg speech, President Bush declared:

“This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy.”

As I demonstrated earlier, President Bush no longer backs up his words with action. Otherwise, Iran and Syria would have been overthrown already. In practice, the Bush Doctrine has been dashed on the shoals of insufficient military resources. In its place, he now offers the country a strategy for fighting terrorism that links American security to the prospect – a highly dubious one, in my opinion – that events in Iraq will inspire “millions” of Iranians, Syrians, and other oppressed peoples of terror-loving nations to overthrow their governments and expel the terrorists in their midst – all before Iran acquires nuclear weapons and the terrorists carry out additional
catastrophic attacks on the United States and its allies.

It is difficult to see how the revolutions President Bush hopes for will occur without significant American military intervention and support, which neither President Bush nor the next president (Republican or Democrat) is likely to give. Moreover, as a practical matter, it is difficult to see how the new Iraqi government will ever be stable, let alone serve as a “beacon” of democracy in the Middle East, so long as it is bordered by pro-terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria bent on its destruction. Yet the President has made clear that the United States will not take military action against these two countries – even to ensure the success of Iraq. President Bush’s failure to
gird the country for war in the aftermath of 9/11 thus may doom not only the Bush Doctrine, but the President’s new, more limited war aim of establishing a “free society” in Iraq. [emphases added]

I always suspected, even while fervently hoping otherwise, that the President never intended to go any further militarily than Iraq, even apart from the not-unexpected relectance to undertaker any additional military campaigns after all the partisan hell he had to take from the DisLoyal Opposition over it. The Warshawsky piece just puts the official toe-tag on those hopes.

And in harrowing fashion:

In both word and deed, therefore, the President has transformed the “war on terror,” pitting the United States and its allies against the forces of international Islamic terrorism, into a counter-insurgency action in Iraq, pitting the new Iraqi government against the Baathist-Islamist coalition that wants to destroy it. The entire conceptual framework underlying the Bush Doctrine has been replaced, in just a few short years, with a Vietnam-era retread. Although President Bush tries to mask this strategic retreat with tough-sounding words about “fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home,” there is something hollow, even a bit craven, about this new slogan. It also is demonstrably untrue, as proved by the Madrid and London bombings. And by President Bush’s repeated promises to bring American troops home just as soon as the Iraqis are capable of fighting the insurgents themselves, not after the insurgents are defeated.

The awful truth is that President Bush has reverted to pre-9/11 thinking about how we should be dealing with the terrorist threat.

Perhaps the 2004 election wasn't nearly as critical as we thought it was.

That's terror-inspiring all by itself.