Bush League Diplomacy

A lot has been said about the “selective intelligence” reporting done by the Bush administration and, as it now appears, the CIA, but little has been said recently about the fundamental shift in doctrine to a preemptive policy for use of force.
I’ll admit that when I first heard about Bush’s comments regarding preemptive strikes I was appalled. After I let it sink in and tried to remove my feelings for Bush from the matter, I began to realize that a policy of using force globally without imminent threat to American’s or American interests could be justified. Perhaps it would be better if it were a general policy that was not deployed selectively, but across the board in all countries equally, but what if we did act militarily and stepped in on behalf of any peoples who are being systematically killed or forced into terrible situations?
Could we not use our power in those cases, to try to right wrongs of the world — even if there is no oil or huge markets for our goods in the regions where we step in? I think we could but the implications for our standing in the global community would be great (meaning large not necessarily good).
What if we disregarded certain sovereign “rights” of other countries and claimed that an affront upon any person’s natural rights (life, liberty, reproductive freedom, etc.) was an affront upon us all and therefore in the best interests of the world to be stopped. Could we be such a force in the world? Should we? What would the implications be? Would be be hated even more? Maybe we should work on healing our trust issues between our people and government before we set out on such a mission?

%d bloggers like this: