BUSH DOCTRINE: END OF THE PAPER TIGER

by Joe Forsyth - April 28, 2004

For years now terrorists have been pushing our buttons. Like children, they were testing to see how far we would let them go. The terrorists continued to push, and we did nothing. This lack of action eventually led to the tragic events of September 11th, 2001.

Prior to this date, the United States treated terrorism as any other criminal act. When the first World Trade Center bombing occurred in 1993, the 4 Muslims determined to be responsible were arrested, tried, and convicted. During the trial it was determined that the plan was to topple one of the towers onto the other. The plan obviously didn't succeed and "only" 6 people were killed. Many Americans weren't aware of just how destructive the intent was behind the first World Trade Center bombing.

We never saw the terrorist threat for what it really was. At that time our nation would not tolerate American lives being lost in conflicts around the globe, and the terrorists exploited this. In response to our failures to stay the course in Somalia, Usama Bin Laden referred to America as a "Paper Tiger" that would back off if it was hit hard enough.

The analogy of a "Paper Tiger" demonstrates how terrorists around the world viewed us. To the terrorists we only appeared strong; in reality our resolve is weak. Send a few body bags home and America will retreat...until now.

With the recent removal of Saddam Hussein from power, we have now entered a new era of American foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine is a recognition that we cannot continue to be reactive toward the threats we now face as a nation. It has established a strong and unrelenting stance against terrorism throughout the world. It also has established a strong stance against countries that support terrorism with weapons, money, or safe haven.

The Bush Doctrine has put to rest an out-dated policy of containment. We cannot contain terrorism as we did communism during the Cold War. The Soviet Union had nothing to gain and everything to lose by attacking us. They did not believe 72 virgins awaited them in paradise after the nuclear fallout.

Terrorists do not possess this will to live. They are eager to strap bombs to their chest and kill innocent people in the name of Allah. I fear September 11th may only be the beginning of their terror if we don't continue fighting. What is to stop an Al-Qaeda terrorist from setting off a nuclear device in Washington DC? Could you imagine the repercussion of such an attack?

The best policy we can take is one that sets out to prevent such attacks from occurring. Only a strong stance against terrorism is the answer. We cannot sit back and lob missiles from hundreds of miles away hoping to hit our targets. If military force is judged to be necessary, only troops on the ground can ensure that you eliminate the threat from the region.

We cannot rely on diplomacy alone to protect this nation. Some countries may simply refuse to help us or comply with the demands of the world. The Bush Doctrine clearly lays out a plan of using diplomacy as much as possible to deal with the terrorist threat. The use of force under this doctrine is reserved to situations where all diplomatic efforts are judged to have failed. However, it's only when a country fears a credible use of force will they "rethink" their strategy in regard to the terrorists or weapons they are harboring.

Even if you don't agree with the war in Iraq, you must admit that the United States has shown the world that we mean business. Nobody disagrees that the world is a better place without Saddam. We have already begun to see some positive results in removing Saddam Hussein from power. North Korea has finally agreed to talks with its Chinese neighbor about the future of its nuclear weapons program after months of rejecting the idea. Muammar Gaddafi has publicly abandoned the Libyan nuclear program and voluntarily disarmed. Translation: "please don't attack me next!”

How do you know when you have sufficient evidence to take preemptive action against a country harboring terrorists? When you have credible intelligence indicating a clear immediate threat to our nation and have at least some level of international support for your action.

Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat if you consider the biological weapons he could have used. Also, it would have been easy for those weapons to find there way into the hands of terrorists as I'm sure even Saddam has a price. Our intelligence indicated that Saddam could still have these weapons and that many were unaccounted for from UN inspections (some even to this day). Saddam continued to tell us they were destroyed instead of showing proof. Our intelligence was also telling us they had evidence that Saddam may have links with the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda (which we knew he had in the past). Most Americans supported going to war with Iraq and we had the support of 30+ other nations around the world. If you then add the fact that Saddam was one of the cruelest dictators ever and an instability for the entire Middle East, you then have a scenario where preemptive action against a country is justified and necessary to our national security.

The United Nations over time has proven to be little more than a debating society on issues of foreign politics. To its credit it has served to provide great humanitarian aid to countries in need, but has done little in securing the peace of the world. The weakness of this body is evident in examining the situation in Iraq. The United Nations passed a resolution threatening military force if Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UN's demands. The United States said that Saddam was not complying and that force was necessary to make him comply. What was the United Nations response to our invasion of Iraq? They did nothing. They couldn't stop us because they have no legitimate authority. So not only would they not stand up to their own resolution, but they also couldn't enforce their cowardly decision.

The United Nations is nothing more than a stamp of approval. We should continue to seek their support in the future, but we cannot bow down to a single French veto. Our government cannot adequately protect the lives of its citizens if it must first seek permission from the United Nations. If our intelligence offers credible evidence that a nation is harboring terrorists or has nuclear weapons that we fear may fall into the hands of terrorists, then our President must have the option to take action if that country does not cooperate diplomatically. It is always wise to seek international support to help us in our efforts, especially diplomatically. But the only approval the President should need to worry about seeking is that of the American people.

There have been questions raised as to how this doctrine will apply to other countries around the world like Iran or North Korea. The Bush Doctrine clearly states that all diplomatic means must first be exhausted and these countries are currently in the diplomacy phase. If they continue not to cooperate, then these countries will be given some sort of ultimatum. If they continue to defy the world after that, then we will begin discussing the use of military force with our allies. Hopefully the United Nations will wise up to the threat by then and take a more active role. But if they refuse to, then America must do as it sees fit to protect its people. I'm sure we can muster up another "coalition of the willing" outside the UN that understands what it takes to win the war on terror.

The Bush Doctrine has established a strong stance against terrorism and the regimes that support them throughout the world. This new era demands a proactive approach to the terrorist problem. No longer will America be seen as the "Paper Tiger" that terrorists are so familiar with fighting. They continue to see our success in Afghanistan and they will see that we are determined and unwavering in our cause in Iraq. Eventually the terrorists will begin to realize that they no longer face the same enemy as before.

This new Tiger is very real and is on the hunt. Terrorists beware!

Contact the author at

www.collegeconservative.com