The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to aggressively secure itself from countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.[1]
– from Wikipedia article: Bush Doctrine
Though both sides in the Middle East are intensely aware that this battle (in Gaza) will establish facts on the ground in the region for the new administration, Obama’s advisors have sent only vague signals, with David Axelrod on “Face the Nation” Sunday calling Israel a “great ally” and citing America’s “special relationship” with the Jewish state.
In a visit this summer to Israel, Obama did appear to give implicit approval to such a strike, saying that, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”
– from Politico article: Israel lands on Obama’s front burner
There seems to be one set of rules for America and Israel, and another set of rules for India.
Let’s consider just three events: (1) the September 11th attacks, which were widely considered to be adequate justification for our invasion of Afghanistan, (2) rocket attacks on Israel, which are now considered adequate justification for Israel’s current military strikes on Gaza, and (3) the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which prompted India to do … almost nothing.
Here is how the New York Times reported on India’s apparent reluctance to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. and Israel:
NEW DELHI — Though tensions have risen in the past few days, neither India’s governing coalition led by the Congress Party nor its habitually hawkish political opposition is advocating a military confrontation with Pakistan, the country’s neighbor and archrival.
Pakistan’s redeployment of troops late last week to its border with India, from its tribal areas in the northwest, raised fears. The troop movement came a month after the attacks in Mumbai, India’s financial capital, which India says were orchestrated by Pakistan-based militants.
Fear of a conflict in South Asia is unlikely to pass quickly, as Pakistan has resisted a broad crackdown on the militants India says were behind the Mumbai assault.
But for India, many here say, the cost is too high, not just because both sides have nuclear arms. As an Indian official put it, “Almost anything against Pakistan would be messy.”
The Mumbai attacks prompted bellicose outbursts from the Indian news media and led Indian officials to state that their “restraint” should not be mistaken for “weakness.” Yet even a surgical strike on terrorists’ training camps in Pakistan, one of the options floated in the immediate aftermath of the attack, would bring unwanted risks, according to policy makers and analysts.
They say it could damage India’s economic prospects at a time when the country is vulnerable to the global downturn.
Moreover, past military engagements with Pakistan strengthened the political influence of Pakistan’s Army and weakened its civilian government. Many in India say they are reluctant to do anything to undermine civilian rule there.
“The Pakistan military is itching for a fight,” said Lalit Mansingh, a retired Indian ambassador to the United States. “That will give them the excuse not to carry on the fight on Afghanistan.”
This time, he said, the Indian government is left with no choice but to mount a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, in part by appealing to some of its most stalwart allies, like Saudi Arabia, China and the United States. “People realize war would be more costly in its impact,” Mr. Mansingh said.
I do not interpet India’s restraint as weakness — I’m no expert on these matters, but I can’t help thinking India is wise to avoid war. This restraint seems especially impressive, given that the Indian public seems hell-bent on demonizing their own political leadership for failing to prevent these attacks.
But their decision is still somewhat bewildering. If we accept that Americans and Israelis, in general, hate war and want to avoid war — then we must believe they went to war (America in Afghanistan and Israel in Gaze) only because it was absolutely necessary to protect their citizens. The purpose of these wars was to send a message that anyone who attacks America or Israel will face horrible consequences.
So why isn’t it absolutely necessary for India to send that same message? Doesn’t India’s willingness to let Pakistan off the hook put its own citizens in danger? (Again — I support India’s decision to hold off — but I believe this question still needs to be answered.)
I am reminded of some news from early October, reported in another New York Times article, Senate Approves India Nuclear Treaty:
WASHINGTON — The United States opened a new chapter of cooperation with India on Wednesday night as Congress gave final approval to a breakthrough agreement permitting civilian nuclear trade between the countries for the first time in three decades.
The Senate ratified the deal 86 to 13 a week after the House passed it, handing a rare foreign policy victory to President Bush in the twilight of his administration and culminating a three-year debate that raised alarms about a new arms race and nearly toppled the government of India.
The agreement, in the view of its authors, will redefine relations between two countries often at odds during the cold war and build up India as a friendly counterweight to a rising China. But critics complain that it effectively scraps longstanding policies intended to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and that it could encourage nations like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to accelerate their own programs outside international legal structures.
Under the terms of the deal, the United States will now be able to sell nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to India for peaceful energy use despite the fact that New Delhi tested bombs in 1974 and 1998 and never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, India agreed to open up 14 civilian nuclear facilities to international inspection, but could continue to shield eight military reactors from outside scrutiny.
“The national security and economic future of the United States will be enhanced by a strong and enduring partnership with India,” Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said in the Senate debate on Wednesday.
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, called the deal a “grievous mistake” that would reward rogue behavior. Mr. Dorgan and Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, tried to amend the agreement to explicitly require the United States to cut off nuclear trade if India conducted a new nuclear test. The agreement’s backers defeated the proposal, arguing that it was unnecessary and that nuclear trade would be halted in such a situation.
Mr. Bush has been pursuing the agreement since 2005, and his advisers have called closer relations between the United States and India a key part of his foreign policy legacy. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, visiting Mr. Bush at the White House last week, endorsed that view. “When history is written,” he said, “I think it will be recorded that President George W. Bush made an historic goal in bringing our two democracies closer to each other.”
Is India showing restraint because that’s what the United States wants? Is India doing what the United States wants because the U.S. has taken steps to strengthen its alliance with India, in part by approving the treaty described above? In other words, is India basically risking its own security — and avoiding a “messy” war, for the good of all mankind — out of deference to us?
If so, we’d better make sure India doesn’t regret the decision. Apparently, Israel isn’t our only important ally on this planet, and it may be that India’s political leadership deserves our support.