by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 20 2005
All Rights Reserved.

romising to end tyranny around the globe, President George W. Bush took his oath of office from a frail Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Renquist, offering no apologies for his adventurous foreign policy. Bush's 17-minute inaugural speech barely mentioned Iraq, where U.S. troops continue the monumental task of keeping the fledgling democracy from plunging into civil war. While Bush offered resolve, Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi promised to spoil American plans. Only 10 days from Iraq's first national elections in 50 years, insurgents continue the steady diet of sniping, suicide car-bombings, civilian abductions and beheadings, leaving the country in chaos. No one knows for sure how much sympathy Iraq's newly minted security forces have with al-Zarqawi or other insurgents. Terrorists tell Bush he can't pick Iraq's new government.

      Bush's inaugural address gave few details of how he planned “the great objective of ending tyranny,” implying that Iraq might not be the last frontier in the war on terror. . Responding to the veiled threat, Iranian President Mohammed Khatami signaled that Iran was ready for any contingency, including defending itself against an American invasion. With the U.S. mired in Iraq, Khatami doubted that that Bush would embark on any new projects. “Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon,” said Bush, suggesting that, despite the costs, he intends to stay the course in Iraq. Bush reminded a world audience that the U.S. remains on a war footing since Sept. 11. Carrying the doctrine of preemption one step further, Bush justified the war in Iraq, not to deal provocative threats but as a way to promote liberty and freedom.

      Past military actions were justified as responses to unprovoked attacks or a means of defending allies—and U.S. interests—against a dangerous menace. Today's speech expanded the old “Bush Doctrine” of preempting verifiable threats to viewing non-democratic regimes as a threat to U.S. national security. “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore oppression or excuse your oppressors,” said Bush, promising to go after—by whatever means—non-democratic regimes. Though no timetable was given, Bush's speech establishes democratization as his top priority. No mention was made of going after international terrorists like Osama bin Laden, whose Al Qaeda terror network has spread from 45 to 60 countries since Sept. 11. While it's true that Bin Laden no longer trains openly in Afghanistan, it's also true he remains at large.

      Getting the big picture, Bush's ambitious foreign policy eclipses domestic priorities, including fixing beleaguered federal programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, energy and transportation. Forget about arts and culture. With the Iraq war already costing $100 billion and $1-billion a week, there's simply no cash left in the federal treasury to subsidize anything else. Bush's White House frequently criticizes Europeans for their socialist ways, including funding health care, employment and retirement. Yet Bush has no problem granting billions to publicly traded corporations. Bashing Europeans as “leftists” can't hide conspicuous differences in priorities. His inaugural speech was a colossal justification for his misguided foreign policy that links Iraq to Sept. 11 and the war on terror. Now he's asking Americans to sacrifice their lives and security to democratize the planet.

      Sure, the U.S. is fighting terrorists in Iraq, largely because Iraq has become a magnet for jihadists now waging holy war against U.S. occupation. Just as the U.S. supported and funded Osama bin Laden's holy war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the early ‘80s, Russia, China, Iran, Syria and a host of other Islamic countries readily support Bin Laden's new holy war against the U.S. “The survival of liberty in our own land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” declared Bush, asserting the central fallacy of the Iraq war: American liberty was never threatened by Saddam Hussein. Forcing an American democracy on Iraq—or any other country—doesn't create a tolerant foreign policy leading to world peace. It establishes aggression—both political and military—as the path to U.S. national security and world peace.

      Bush's inaugural speech diverts attention away from the real problems facing the U.S. in the post-Sept 11 age, including a pressing domestic agenda. While Bush likes to draw the parallel in Iraq to World War II, the world wasn't confronted in Saddam Hussein with a genocidal maniac hell-bent on worldwide domination. He was a garden-variety secular despot, whose authoritarian regime held together with brutality an essentially disintegrated tribal society. Totalitarianism couldn't hold the Soviet Union together before it finally cracked along ethnic and tribal lines. “We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent upon the well-being of other nations far away,” said Bush, again comparing Iraq to U.S. intervention in World War II. There's nothing isolationist or appeasing about letting other countries chose their own form of government.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.