by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright September 9, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

uch has been said and written about the “Bush Doctrine,” President George W. Bush's paradigm for dealing with terrorism in a post-Sept. 11 world. None has been more fierce and authoritative than Norman Podhoretz's Aug. 23 commentary “Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?” appearing in online version of the Wall Street Journal. A generation ago, Podhoretz, former editor-in-chief of the American Jewish Committee's “Commentary Magazine,” wrote the late President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy talking points, embodied in his best selling 1980 book “The Present Danger.” Podhoretz gave the overarching structure to Reagan's Cold War policy, culminating in Reagan's colorful description of the Soviet Union as the “evil empire.” Now Podhoretz does his level best to give intellectual backbone to Bush's adventurous foreign policy and detour in Iraq.

      Podhoretz quotes frequently from Bush's best-known speeches, methodically giving a coherent rationale to the war on terror. Calling the Cold War WW III and the war on terror WW IV, Podhoretz makes a compelling parallel for how yesterday's Truman Doctrine of containing Soviet expansionism has now been replaced by the Bush Doctrine of holding the line against Islamic terror. Where the Soviets actually rolled in tanks and took over much of Eastern Europe, terrorists, with the possible exception of the Taliban in Afghanistan, haven't taken an inch of territory anywhere—though they've certainly lashed out. Podhoretz talks with the same fog about Sept. 11, seemingly excusing the colossal miscalculation in Iraq, drinking White House cool-aid that Iraq is “the central front in the war on terror.” Podhoretz offers more excuses, quoting White House propaganda as fact.

      Podhoretz uses the same Cold War claptrap about spreading freedom and democracy to justify the Iraq war. Spreading freedom and democracy in foreign lands can't come at the expense of the U.S. military and treasury. Arguing for preemptive war to defend the country against "real" national security threats doesn't give a blanket justification to attack sovereign nations. Podhoretz dismisses the weapons of mass destruction argument as the rationale for war. He picks parts of Bush's speeches that seek desperately to find new excuses to justify the war. Podhoretz blasts multilateralists, especially the U.N., for trying to meddle in U.S. national security. He offers no apology to Dr. Hans Blix and his team of U.N. weapons inspectors who were proven right that Iraq possessed no WMD. Attacking Iraq was still justified because Saddam was secretive and violated U.N. resolutions.

      Bush's best hope of salvaging Republican fortunes in November comes from hyping the five-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and the ongoing threat of terrorism. Bush's anticipated Oval Office speech on Sept. 11 plans to reiterate the main talking points in Podhoretz's Aug. 23 article, namely, that only by beating back terrorists in Iraq and spreading democracy can the U.S. remain safe from future attacks. He won't mention that the foiled terrorist plot in the U.K. had nothing to do with Iraq's insurgents or so-called terrorists. Less than two months before the midyear elections, Bush continues to call Iraq the central front in the war on terror. He must answer critics, including a freshly declassified Senate report that once-and-for-all disputes Iraq's connection to Osama bin Laden and the terrorists responsible for Sept. 11. Podhoretz helps supply Bush more fresh smoke.

      More careful analysis of where Podhoretz is coming from stems from his connection to the American Jewish Committee. Podhoretz supports any U.S. policy, including toppling Saddam, that helps Israel cope with its struggle to survive the rising tide of genocidal anti-Semitism. Instead of concocting elaborate excuses for the Iraq policy or the “Bush Doctrine,” Podhoretz should be more transparent praising Bush for being the first U.S. president to take a stand against the late Yasser Arafat and his involvement in terrorism. Linking Iraq to the war on terror helps cement Democrats' weakness in voters' minds. Sept. 11, and the prospect of more attacks, is Bush's best pitch heading into November. November's election becomes a clear referendum on Bush's Iraq and terror policies. Should Republicans lose either the House or Senate, or both, Iraq may decide the next presidential election.

      There's big difference between the war in Iraq and fighting Bin Laden's brand of Islamic extremism responsible for Sept. 11. Podhoretz is dead wrong calling Sept. 11 the beginning, in his mind, of WW IV. If he checks the record, he'll recall Ayatollah Khomenei's 1979 Islamic revolution and siege of the U.S. embassy. He'll also recall the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Ethiopia and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen—all preceding Sept. 11. No terrorist attack, other than Saddam's border dispute with Kuwait, originated from Iraq. Podhoretz should know better than to validate the “Bush Doctrine” based on Bush's own speeches. He's correct fingering Iran as today's biggest sponsor of global terror yet continues to blow smoke about Iraq.

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.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.