The Observer, September 22, 2006
Volume XXXIX, Issue 4
Free Speech Zone: War on terror planned prior to the September 11 events
The foreign policy of the United States since 9/11, if you can call such haphazard fumbling a policy, has been determined by a set of foreign policy objectives known collectively as the "Bush Doctrine." Because the Bush Doctrine has not been officially placed down in writing, it can only be inferred from the speeches and actions of the administration. In this regard, it differs from past doctrines of American presidents, which were clearly stated and understood. This may be part of the reason why there is much less enthusiasm for the president's policies than, for example, the policy of containment of Communism during the Cold War. With regard to the current administration, the ambiguity of policy appears to be deliberate, thereby allowing a whole range of actions to be deemed part of a wider "war on terror," apart from the actual significance to national security.
Originally, the Bush Doctrine was a (somewhat) articulated and direct threat to terrorists and those who aid them. Thus the invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban fit perfectly into this scheme. However, for reasons still unknown, the administration broadened the lists of potential threats after invading Afghanistan, abandoned the pursuit of Al-Qaeda, and somewhere alone the line decided that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a prime target.
This vital shift in focus was disastrous for America's image around the world, and the result has been far from idyllic. However, it was not a situation which the United States fell into. Rather, it was a deliberate choice made inspite of the lack of reliable information to justify such an engagement.
This is largely due to the fact that the war was formulated before 9/11, and has been in the works for a decade. Although 9/11 was instrumental in changing the parameters of the Bush Doctrine, many of the core ideas had already been envisaged by members of the administration. The most direct influence on this aspect of the Bush Doctrine is the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative think tank established on the 1990s. Its membership includes many figures who currently are or have been key figures in the planning and execution of the administration's policy: among them Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.
This group implored then–President Bill Clinton to increase military spending, ratchet up pressure on the "Axis of Evil" nations, and agitate for a position of undeniable military dominance by the United States in the post-Cold War world. This theory of foreign policy implies aggressive, and if necessary, unilateral action against belligerent regimes, and entails support for elements of authoritarian societies which seek a roughly democratic government. These guiding principles of the administration's policy were already in place before 9/11 and would have been implemented with or without the fear of terrorism looming in the minds of the American populace.
Therefore, the invasion of Iraq and all that has transpired there since March 2003 cannot be qualified as part of the war on terror. The invasion was a forgone conclusion as soon as President Bush was sworn in. In fact some members of the administration (and the PNAC), most notably Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney, had begun outlining a case of invading Saddam's Iraq nearly as soon as the first Gulf War had ended. The "evidence" of WMD was already prepared, the U.S. already had a substantial military presence in the Persian Gulf, the ideology was in place to justify the war; the administration only had to pull the trigger.
It appears then that the pursuit of terrorism is not the most imminent goal for the Administration, but at most a convenient device to gather votes. While Osama bin Laden remains free and virulent, anti-Americanism is at its highest-ever level, and the administration continues to pursue a policy which does not account the realities of the post-9/11 world.
The president is correct in saying that the world changed on 9/11, but he forgot to change with it! It is for this reason that the administration, clinging to the already-failed Bush Doctrine, is beginning to make a case against Iran, utilizing "evidence" which is about reliable as the evidence provided for the Iraq invasion. These efforts have already incurred accusations of déjà vu, and rightly so. Any military action against Iran would also not fit the mold of preventing terrorism, but instead only serve to further the overly-aggressive and hitherto unsuccessful neoconservative agenda.
