Bush doctrine under threat

WASHINGTON – The controversy over the quality of intelligence cited before last year’s US invasion of Iraq may undermine President George W Bush’s doctrine of preemptive attacks against potential enemies.

In a television interview on Sunday, former top US weapons hunter David Kay said the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq had discredited the doctrine, a key element of Bush’s national security policy. “If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly can’t have a policy of preemption,” Kay said on the US television show Fox News Sunday.Bush announced his policy in a speech two years ago, after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, when he declared the country could no longer seek simply to deter or contain nations or groups that might pose a threat.”Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies,” he said at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York.”We must take the battle to the enemy,” he said.Iraq was the first test case of this policy.Before the war, Bush argued that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons posed a “grave and gathering danger”.He tried to get United Nations backing for his attack but when that failed went ahead anyway.Though Saddam was overthrown and later captured, the controversy over the US justification for the war has refused to die.Kay’s disclosure that Iraq probably did not have any weapons of mass destruction has only intensified it.Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine argued that the Bush doctrine was in tatters because of the intelligence failure.”The removal of Hussein was a blessing for Iraq, the US, and the world more generally.But thanks to the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) screw-up, even more than the post-war troubles, the Iraq mission is also likely to be the first and last example of preemption in action,” Rose argued in a recent article.But Phyllis Bennis of the liberal Institute for Policy Studies said there was no sign the president had changed his mind.The United States was unlikely to embark on any new military adventure during an election year, she said but if Bush were re-elected in November, all bets were off.”The decision to go to war against Iraq had nothing to do with intelligence.We went to war because ideologues in the administration were determined to go to war and those ideologues still believe in their doctrine,” she said.Bush’s doctrine was not accepted overseas and the attack on Iraq has stoked anti-Americanism throughout the world, said University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape.”Historically, most countries that have launched such preventive wars have not succeeded,” he said.”They often go well initially but the international community turns against the aggressor”.- Nampa-Reuters”If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly can’t have a policy of preemption,” Kay said on the US television show Fox News Sunday. Bush announced his policy in a speech two years ago, after the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, when he declared the country could no longer seek simply to deter or contain nations or groups that might pose a threat. “Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies,” he said at the US Military Academy at West Point, New York. “We must take the battle to the enemy,” he said. Iraq was the first test case of this policy. Before the war, Bush argued that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons posed a “grave and gathering danger”. He tried to get United Nations backing for his attack but when that failed went ahead anyway. Though Saddam was overthrown and later captured, the controversy over the US justification for the war has refused to die. Kay’s disclosure that Iraq probably did not have any weapons of mass destruction has only intensified it. Gideon Rose, managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine argued that the Bush doctrine was in tatters because of the intelligence failure. “The removal of Hussein was a blessing for Iraq, the US, and the world more generally. But thanks to the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) screw-up, even more than the post-war troubles, the Iraq mission is also likely to be the first and last example of preemption in action,” Rose argued in a recent article. But Phyllis Bennis of the liberal Institute for Policy Studies said there was no sign the president had changed his mind. The United States was unlikely to embark on any new military adventure during an election year, she said but if Bush were re-elected in November, all bets were off. “The decision to go to war against Iraq had nothing to do with intelligence. We went to war because ideologues in the administration were determined to go to war and those ideologues still believe in their doctrine,” she said. Bush’s doctrine was not accepted overseas and the attack on Iraq has stoked anti-Americanism throughout the world, said University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape. “Historically, most countries that have launched such preventive wars have not succeeded,” he said. “They often go well initially but the international community turns against the aggressor”. – Nampa-Reuters