The Speech is Done.
I'm sorry for lack of paragraph breaks, livejournal sucks. I shall try my best.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I read this speech, rescue efforts are underway to try to find any survivors from the ruins of Seattle, Washington. As many of you may know, shortly after 8 AM today, North Korean president Kim Jong Il fired two nuclear missiles from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang into one of the most populous cities of the American West Coast. Early estimates number the casualties well over one million. The American government has promised swift retaliation, most likely using a nuclear counterstrike. The only official word from the North Korean government comes from a taped statement from Il himself sent to CNN, stating “Too long has the great nation of North Korea stood by in fear while America built an army along Korea’s borders intent on destroying our people; a strike from America was imminent, and the People’s Army acted in response to the threat.”
Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation; however the possibility is frighteningly real in not only the post-September 11th world, but in a world in which America has adopted the Bush Doctrine, a policy of “unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be achieved” (Encarta). Essentially, this means that America’s official foreign policy is to have the strongest military, reserve the ability to attack any country they please if the country merely appears to pose a threat, and reserves the right to have the right to completely ignore the advice of the international community. It is for precisely these reasons that America must abandon this doctrine as soon as possible, or else face a world with global Anti-American sentiment far greater than anything we have seen. Also, should America continue this policy, it will give the go-ahead for any nation in the world to adopt the strategy, allowing them to strike anyone at any time for any reason.
Before I criticize the policy of preemptive strikes, we must first examine the history of the policy, specifically post-World War II. In late 1967, the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt surrounded the borders of Israel. Fearing a direct attack was imminent, Israel struck preemptively, quickly crushing their enemies (wikipedia.com). The second example of preemptive strikes in the modern world is one that many of you did not even know was based upon a preemptive strike: Vietnam. In early August of 1964, American ships off the coast of Vietnam reported that they were being fired upon by North Vietnamese ships. Congress soon passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed America to preemptively strike upon the North Vietnamese (wikipedia.com).
Today, however, it has become clear that there were no ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that America went preemptively into war under false pretenses. “There were no boats there… there was nothing there but black water and American fire power” says James Stockdale, a pilot that flew over the Gulf during the time (Stockdale). The concept of openly deceiving the American people in order to justify a preemptive strike is a terrifying one; who decides what country is a threat or not?
The glory of defeating another enemy soon grew stale, and American citizens realized the futility of the Vietnam War, turning to vicious protests the likes America had never seen. As we all know, America failed in their mission, and the world did not fall to communism as a result of the domino theory. After the smoke had cleared, the war had cost an estimated 150 billion dollars, caused approximately fifty-six thousand, Americans to die for a cause that was ultimately futile and based on false information, and divided the country (pbs.org). Sound a little bit like Iraq?
This brings me to the most current of events, and the most crucial example as to why the Bush Doctrine can only harm the balance of the world, and not help it: the current war in Iraq. US President George W Bush invaded Iraq on March 19th 2003, along with a “coalition of the willing,” a coalition of about thirty nations contributing troops or aid to the American cause of removing Sadaam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. While thirty nations may sound like a high number, one must take into consideration that not only is this thirty nations out of nearly two hundred, but the second largest nation, Britain, sent forty-five thousand troops, while Australia, the third largest nation send only two thousand. And of course, we must not forget Poland, who sent a whopping two hundred troops (wikipedia.com). While many will argue that because of this coalition, the United States did not act unilaterally, it is clear that the United States was the largest player in the war, holding the bulk of the troops and finances, and ignoring the opinion of the majority of the world.
As we all know, the main focus of the war in Iraq was that Sadaam Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction, that he was ACTIVELY pursuing more, and that he had THE INTENT TO USE THEM ON AMERICANS. Due to the recent Duelfer report, it has become clear that these claims were fraudulent and that therefore the use of preemptive force was unjustified. The Duelfer report, released on October 7th, 2004, states that “Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions” (usatoday.com). I will say this again. Iraq had NO weapons of Mass Destruction, despite the fact that this was why we went to war. The Duelfer report simply proves the fact that preemptive strikes, no matter how damning the initial evidence provided may be, can be for the wrong cause. As of about 8 AM this morning, 1,2__ __ coalition soldiers have died in Iraq, and according to the New York Times, the Iraqi civilian casualties number “in the 10,000 to 15,000 range” (NY Times). All of these deaths can be seen as in vain, as the cause for the preemptive strike has been declared invalid. Ladies and gentlemen, one man decided to preemptively send our military to Iraq, and he was wrong… and the price we’ve paid is unthinkable.
The Bush Doctrine, the aim of which is to bring peace to the world and eliminate the threat of terror has absolutely backfired. Iraq is only becoming more of a quagmire, with attacks against Americans being seen on an almost daily basis. Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high in the Muslim world, with America being seen as imperialist and policing the world; in Egypt, 84% of the population disfavors America. In Jordan, 82%, and in Pakistan, our so called “greatest ally in the war on terror,” only 19% of the population agrees with our policy (Wirthlin Report).
While the war on terror has killed or captured much of Al Qaeda’s leaders, membership in the terrorist group has increased exponentially. According to Time magazine, "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq” (time.com). This means that while Bush states that Al Qaeda has been crippled as a direct result of the effects of the Bush Doctrine, it has actually done the exact opposite; it has only caused more disarray and chaos in the very region it is supposed to bring peace to.
Opponents of the Bush Doctrine also argue the point that the doctrine breaks International Law set by the United Nations Charter in 1945. Article II of the charter states “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (un.org). If America can choose to ignore the United Nation’s laws on preemptive strikes, then what prevents any other nation from adopting the strategy?
On September 18th, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that his country is “seriously preparing for pre-emptive strikes against terrorists” (Associated Press). This is quite frightening, as it essentially gives a green light for other nations across the world, be they friend or foe, to adopt preemption. If India sees Pakistan as a terrorist threat, then, according to preemption, they have the ability to strike, which may elevate to a nuclear conflict. China may see Taiwan as a threat, and may lead a nuclear pre-emptive strike upon them. As I mentioned in my introduction, Kim Jong Il of North Korea sees America as a threat, as we did label them part of the “Axis of Evil” by George Bush.
Supporters of the Bush Doctrine feel that the world is better off under a policy of preemption, and that while there are a few kinks to work out, in the long run the policy will work, ushering in a new era of global democracy and peace. Now, I am an optimist, but even this is too far fetched for me; as I have stated previously, should we continue this policy, America will be further alienated from the world, and the likelihood of terrorist attacks may increase greatly. As more and more countries adopt the Bush Doctrine, then the world could very well be thrown into violent conflict on a global scale.
My solution to the Bush Doctrine has many parts. The first of which is, obviously, to abandon the concept of preemption. Preemptive attacks have, in most modern cases, been based upon faulty grounds, and have been proven to result in widely unpopular opinions both international and domestic. An example of global opinion changing because of these strikes is Germany, one of America’s largest allies. In 1999, 78% of the country agreed with American policies; now, only 25% agree (Wirthlin).
Instead of using preemptive strikes, I believe that America should attempt to use diplomatic efforts in further conflicts. According to the Duelfer report, Iraq did indeed get rid of their weapons programs in an attempt to get the sanctions lifted. Sanctions against Libya were recently lifted after they chose to give up their weapons programs, proving that there is hope for a more civilized reasoning. It took twelve years for these sanctions to be lifted, which proves that patience pays off, and the negatives of the “instant action” of Bush’s policy clearly outweigh the positives. Next, I feel that it is imperative that the United States must attempt to rebuild alliances with the nations of the world we turned our backs upon in an attempt to gain favor among the world’s people.
The benefits to my plan are simple. By abandoning the Bush Doctrine, America will gain favor in the eyes of other countries, and will stop being seen as an imperial superpower. This, in turn, will cool some of the Middle Eastern rage toward America. If there is less rage from the Islamic world, then there is less likelihood of further terrorist attacks. Finally, the population of America will not be as divided as it has been with the past two years; immediately after September 11th, our country saw a unity unlike any other. As a result of the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine, our country has seen division of almost Vietnam-era proportions.
I’d like to leave you with a quote from Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on his opinion regarding the criteria that a country must fit before supporters of the Bush Doctrine say a preemptive strike is necessary: “Here's the problem. It's not unreasonable, but it's not the point. The point is...I'll list you four things: developing weapons of mass destruction, inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, supporting and harboring terrorism, and oppression of their own people. Now here's the problem with your doctrine. You can't tell me what country I just named. And that's a problem when you're talking about war. You don't know if I'm talking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan” (The Daily Show). Are all of you ready for America to declare war on Iran, North Korea AND Sudan after seeing the follies of preemption? Think about it.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, as I read this speech, rescue efforts are underway to try to find any survivors from the ruins of Seattle, Washington. As many of you may know, shortly after 8 AM today, North Korean president Kim Jong Il fired two nuclear missiles from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang into one of the most populous cities of the American West Coast. Early estimates number the casualties well over one million. The American government has promised swift retaliation, most likely using a nuclear counterstrike. The only official word from the North Korean government comes from a taped statement from Il himself sent to CNN, stating “Too long has the great nation of North Korea stood by in fear while America built an army along Korea’s borders intent on destroying our people; a strike from America was imminent, and the People’s Army acted in response to the threat.”
Obviously, this is a hypothetical situation; however the possibility is frighteningly real in not only the post-September 11th world, but in a world in which America has adopted the Bush Doctrine, a policy of “unrivaled military supremacy, the concept of preemptive or preventive war, and a willingness to act unilaterally if multilateral cooperation cannot be achieved” (Encarta). Essentially, this means that America’s official foreign policy is to have the strongest military, reserve the ability to attack any country they please if the country merely appears to pose a threat, and reserves the right to have the right to completely ignore the advice of the international community. It is for precisely these reasons that America must abandon this doctrine as soon as possible, or else face a world with global Anti-American sentiment far greater than anything we have seen. Also, should America continue this policy, it will give the go-ahead for any nation in the world to adopt the strategy, allowing them to strike anyone at any time for any reason.
Before I criticize the policy of preemptive strikes, we must first examine the history of the policy, specifically post-World War II. In late 1967, the armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt surrounded the borders of Israel. Fearing a direct attack was imminent, Israel struck preemptively, quickly crushing their enemies (wikipedia.com). The second example of preemptive strikes in the modern world is one that many of you did not even know was based upon a preemptive strike: Vietnam. In early August of 1964, American ships off the coast of Vietnam reported that they were being fired upon by North Vietnamese ships. Congress soon passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed America to preemptively strike upon the North Vietnamese (wikipedia.com).
Today, however, it has become clear that there were no ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that America went preemptively into war under false pretenses. “There were no boats there… there was nothing there but black water and American fire power” says James Stockdale, a pilot that flew over the Gulf during the time (Stockdale). The concept of openly deceiving the American people in order to justify a preemptive strike is a terrifying one; who decides what country is a threat or not?
The glory of defeating another enemy soon grew stale, and American citizens realized the futility of the Vietnam War, turning to vicious protests the likes America had never seen. As we all know, America failed in their mission, and the world did not fall to communism as a result of the domino theory. After the smoke had cleared, the war had cost an estimated 150 billion dollars, caused approximately fifty-six thousand, Americans to die for a cause that was ultimately futile and based on false information, and divided the country (pbs.org). Sound a little bit like Iraq?
This brings me to the most current of events, and the most crucial example as to why the Bush Doctrine can only harm the balance of the world, and not help it: the current war in Iraq. US President George W Bush invaded Iraq on March 19th 2003, along with a “coalition of the willing,” a coalition of about thirty nations contributing troops or aid to the American cause of removing Sadaam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. While thirty nations may sound like a high number, one must take into consideration that not only is this thirty nations out of nearly two hundred, but the second largest nation, Britain, sent forty-five thousand troops, while Australia, the third largest nation send only two thousand. And of course, we must not forget Poland, who sent a whopping two hundred troops (wikipedia.com). While many will argue that because of this coalition, the United States did not act unilaterally, it is clear that the United States was the largest player in the war, holding the bulk of the troops and finances, and ignoring the opinion of the majority of the world.
As we all know, the main focus of the war in Iraq was that Sadaam Hussein DID have weapons of mass destruction, that he was ACTIVELY pursuing more, and that he had THE INTENT TO USE THEM ON AMERICANS. Due to the recent Duelfer report, it has become clear that these claims were fraudulent and that therefore the use of preemptive force was unjustified. The Duelfer report, released on October 7th, 2004, states that “Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions” (usatoday.com). I will say this again. Iraq had NO weapons of Mass Destruction, despite the fact that this was why we went to war. The Duelfer report simply proves the fact that preemptive strikes, no matter how damning the initial evidence provided may be, can be for the wrong cause. As of about 8 AM this morning, 1,2__ __ coalition soldiers have died in Iraq, and according to the New York Times, the Iraqi civilian casualties number “in the 10,000 to 15,000 range” (NY Times). All of these deaths can be seen as in vain, as the cause for the preemptive strike has been declared invalid. Ladies and gentlemen, one man decided to preemptively send our military to Iraq, and he was wrong… and the price we’ve paid is unthinkable.
The Bush Doctrine, the aim of which is to bring peace to the world and eliminate the threat of terror has absolutely backfired. Iraq is only becoming more of a quagmire, with attacks against Americans being seen on an almost daily basis. Anti-American sentiment is at an all-time high in the Muslim world, with America being seen as imperialist and policing the world; in Egypt, 84% of the population disfavors America. In Jordan, 82%, and in Pakistan, our so called “greatest ally in the war on terror,” only 19% of the population agrees with our policy (Wirthlin Report).
While the war on terror has killed or captured much of Al Qaeda’s leaders, membership in the terrorist group has increased exponentially. According to Time magazine, "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq” (time.com). This means that while Bush states that Al Qaeda has been crippled as a direct result of the effects of the Bush Doctrine, it has actually done the exact opposite; it has only caused more disarray and chaos in the very region it is supposed to bring peace to.
Opponents of the Bush Doctrine also argue the point that the doctrine breaks International Law set by the United Nations Charter in 1945. Article II of the charter states “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” (un.org). If America can choose to ignore the United Nation’s laws on preemptive strikes, then what prevents any other nation from adopting the strategy?
On September 18th, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that his country is “seriously preparing for pre-emptive strikes against terrorists” (Associated Press). This is quite frightening, as it essentially gives a green light for other nations across the world, be they friend or foe, to adopt preemption. If India sees Pakistan as a terrorist threat, then, according to preemption, they have the ability to strike, which may elevate to a nuclear conflict. China may see Taiwan as a threat, and may lead a nuclear pre-emptive strike upon them. As I mentioned in my introduction, Kim Jong Il of North Korea sees America as a threat, as we did label them part of the “Axis of Evil” by George Bush.
Supporters of the Bush Doctrine feel that the world is better off under a policy of preemption, and that while there are a few kinks to work out, in the long run the policy will work, ushering in a new era of global democracy and peace. Now, I am an optimist, but even this is too far fetched for me; as I have stated previously, should we continue this policy, America will be further alienated from the world, and the likelihood of terrorist attacks may increase greatly. As more and more countries adopt the Bush Doctrine, then the world could very well be thrown into violent conflict on a global scale.
My solution to the Bush Doctrine has many parts. The first of which is, obviously, to abandon the concept of preemption. Preemptive attacks have, in most modern cases, been based upon faulty grounds, and have been proven to result in widely unpopular opinions both international and domestic. An example of global opinion changing because of these strikes is Germany, one of America’s largest allies. In 1999, 78% of the country agreed with American policies; now, only 25% agree (Wirthlin).
Instead of using preemptive strikes, I believe that America should attempt to use diplomatic efforts in further conflicts. According to the Duelfer report, Iraq did indeed get rid of their weapons programs in an attempt to get the sanctions lifted. Sanctions against Libya were recently lifted after they chose to give up their weapons programs, proving that there is hope for a more civilized reasoning. It took twelve years for these sanctions to be lifted, which proves that patience pays off, and the negatives of the “instant action” of Bush’s policy clearly outweigh the positives. Next, I feel that it is imperative that the United States must attempt to rebuild alliances with the nations of the world we turned our backs upon in an attempt to gain favor among the world’s people.
The benefits to my plan are simple. By abandoning the Bush Doctrine, America will gain favor in the eyes of other countries, and will stop being seen as an imperial superpower. This, in turn, will cool some of the Middle Eastern rage toward America. If there is less rage from the Islamic world, then there is less likelihood of further terrorist attacks. Finally, the population of America will not be as divided as it has been with the past two years; immediately after September 11th, our country saw a unity unlike any other. As a result of the war in Iraq and the Bush Doctrine, our country has seen division of almost Vietnam-era proportions.
I’d like to leave you with a quote from Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show on his opinion regarding the criteria that a country must fit before supporters of the Bush Doctrine say a preemptive strike is necessary: “Here's the problem. It's not unreasonable, but it's not the point. The point is...I'll list you four things: developing weapons of mass destruction, inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, supporting and harboring terrorism, and oppression of their own people. Now here's the problem with your doctrine. You can't tell me what country I just named. And that's a problem when you're talking about war. You don't know if I'm talking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan” (The Daily Show). Are all of you ready for America to declare war on Iran, North Korea AND Sudan after seeing the follies of preemption? Think about it.
Thank you.