The Bush Doctrine

From the article linked by clicking on the picture:

[Jimmy Carter, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize winner,] came down hard on the Iraq war, saying Bush had taken a "radical departure from all previous administration policies."

"We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered," he said.

Although I can no longer classify myself as a Democrat[1], I find it hard to imagine ever registering as a Republican, and I tend to listen when Jimmy Carter speaks. I have found myself respecting much of what he has to say over the years, and his criticism of the Bush Administration's foreign policy is interesting to me.

In particular, I agree that pre-emptive war seems impossible ever to justify.

Still, I have at least the vague impression that, though every historical event has its unique characteristics, the Bush Administration's aggression against Iraq has some historical parallel, even within the confines of U.S. history. In the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, for example, it seems that the addition of the explosion of the USS Maine to a list of supposed atrocities committed by Spain was most likely an interpretation of events in line with ulterior motives of certain politicians and William Randolph Hearst. Just as a certain interpretation of intelligence data may have been in line with motives within the Bush Administration. Although it was McKinley who was ultimately pressured politically to go along with war, the fact is that his administration did ultimately go along.

Carter seems to go a bit too far in speaking of "a radical departure from all previous administration policies." Perhaps he refers merely to Bush's departure from policies of the immediately preceding administration. Perhaps, but that would hardly be a news-worthy claim. According to my initial impression of the comment, Carter is claiming that the Bush Administration's policy is a fundamental break, say, even from Theodore Roosevelt's interpretation of the Monroe doctrine. Of course, the philosophical terms are completely different between Roosevelt's doctrine and Bush's; after all, Bush baldly talks about pre-emption, and such honest talk would indeed seem new. But what in principle is the big difference between (a) Roosevelt's claim that we can do whatever we want on the Western Hemisphere and (b) Bush's claim that we can do whatever we want on the Whole Sphere?

I am ready to admit that I have this all completely wrong, as I have little experience thinking carefully, clearly, and deeply about international politics. Anyway, I've been looking for a good excuse to post something to the new Blogger, and I think that the picture of Carter is a good one. :^)

[1] For example, the Democratic Party would have the government not merely permit but actually provide incentives for persons to behave in a way that I find gravely immoral and damaging to society. And then there's the whole abortion issue.