Wednesday, March 17, 2004

A Miserable Failure On So Many Levels
Spain's support of the Iraq War didn't protect it from international terrorism. Why should anyone believe that regime change in Baghdad has made any other nation safer?

The March 11 attack is the starkest proof yet that the so-called Bush Doctrine -- concocted to justify the invasion of Iraq -- has precious little to do with the worldwide campaign against organized terrorism.
It forces one to question America's priorities since Sept. 11, 2001. What has the Bush Doctrine -- by which America reserves the right to attack any sovereign nation if doing so is perceived to be in our national-security interest -- done to address the threat of terrorism?
The Bush Doctrine is largely toothless in either case. Preemptively attacking sovereign nations isn't likely to crush a terrorist organization that skulks in the shadows; that would be about as practical as bombing a city to kill its roaches.

Nor does preemptive war hold much promise against WMDs. There will be times when a tactical strike on a suspected weapons facility would be appropriate, but preemptive general war would more likely compel the target nation to use WMDs as a last resort. The world is lucky that Saddam Hussein had nothing to launch when we attacked.
The world certainly is better off without Hussein, but the March 11 attack casts doubt on whether the world is any safer.[Nitpicker emphasis]
As the questions get asked ...tumblin'


Post a Comment

<< Home