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.
Every national situation is different — I hope to write a post on the Gaza conflict soon — but it seems to me the question mark in your post should be an exclamation point. Yes, India’s leadership responded partly to US pressure not to respond militarily to the attacks on Bombay, but nonetheless its tempered response was the right one. Likewise, the U.S.’s invasion of Afghanistan has been hugely ineffective and counterproductive — putting aside the morality of our actions — as far as I can tell. And I think Israel’s actions in Gaza are a huge mistake, both morally and even when considered through a narrow strategic lens. This time next year, there wil not be peace in the region. There will only be further war. So, let us prase India’s tempered response, its resistance to popular anger, and let us hope we all move toward a more enlightened response to our very real problems with terrorism and extremist violence.
Comment by Lee — December 30, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Lee, I agree almost completely. I put the question mark in the title because I wasn’t entirely confident in my opinion — I often wonder if there is a level of comprehension that I’m missing when it comes to this stuff, and I wanted to see if anybody else feels the way I do. I am very grateful to India for taking a path that inspires hope rather than horror. India’s restraint shows that the people of the civilized world aren’t always going to have their actions dictated by criminals.
I hope, at some point in the future, you write more extensively about the moral dimensions of the war in Afghanistan and/or the war in Gaza. I want to understand what you means when you say the Gaza war is a huge mistake morally.
This reminds me of the issue of torture: critics of the US torture policy offer moral arguments (torture is wrong) and pragmatic arguments (torture doesn’t work, and is actually counterproductive). When it comes to the question of how best to argument against torture, I strongly prefer the practical arguments to the moral ones — because I feel that if I make the moral argument, then I’m implicitly conceding the pragmatic argument. The same could be said in this case — I can imagine an Israeli being deeply offended that we would criticize their actions as immoral, when from their perspective they are trying to protect themselves.
Comment by Ian — December 30, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
I have the opposite reaction. I always prioritize the moral argument, because morality fundamentally shapes how we articulate our goals, and is in any event never separate from pragmatics. It’s impossible to make a pragmatic claim without also already making a moral claim. If I say, the death penalty is effective in deterring crime, I am moralizing. I think it’s “moral” to deter crime. Pragmatism is always relative to the moral priorities of people.
To argue against the Iraq war primarily by saying that it was not effective in acheiving Rumsfeld’s goals risks accepting Rumsfeld’s moral framework. On the contrary, to say that I reject Rumsfeld’s moral framework/priorities is to say nothing about strategy. He may be successful or he may not, but he should not have pursued his goals in the first place, because his goals are bad.
Of course, I partly hold my views partly because of my assessment of the pragmatics of the particular situation, and how the facts relate to my fundamental values as I understand them. But once I decide then opposing Rumsfeld’s — or Ehud Barak’s — priorities becomes at heart a point of morality.
Comment by Lee — December 30, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Is there really any moral disagreement about whether an Israeli child should be killed by rocket fire? Because if it’s a matter of goals, you’ll never convince an Israeli mother to give up the goal of wanting to protect her children from attacks by Palestinians. Is there any moral disagreement about the need to prevent terrorists from using a nuclear weapon to destroy an American city? Because you’ll never convince a sane American that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld were wrong to pursue that goal of protecting the American people. Indeed, is there any disagreement about the benefits of trying to deter crime? To argue that you’re against the death penalty because you have a moral problem with the goal of deterring crime is a losing argument, big time.
I would argue that there is nothing wrong with accepting Rumsfeld’s larger goals in the terms that Rumsfeld explicity articulated it before, during and after the war. The problem is his tactics, which were (a) immoral, and (b) ineffective. Am I right?
Comment by Ian — December 31, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
By framing the moral disagreements the way you do, I would argue that you’re buying into a certain interpretation of these situations that I think is incorrect — morally and simultaneously practically.
What if I said “Is there really any m oral disagreement about whether a Palestianian child should be killed by a blockade” would you agree? A lot of Israelis would make a vocal argument in favor of blockading Gaza — a really destructive policy which led to the recent spate of rocket attacks. And a lot of Palestinians would say “as long as our children are killed we should continue rocket attacks.” There is a moral disagreement.
My “moral” claim would be that regardless of the horrible suffering either side has suffered in this forty year plus conflict — whatever the questions are about “legitimacy” — neither side has a warrant to keep blowing each other up in a way that continues the cycle of violence.
The death penalty point is an exaggeration meant to illustrate that moral arguments are involved in even the most “practical” arguments. The moral of preventing crime is so embedded in public consciousness that to oppose it seems alien and strange. Your response is to appeal to convincing “sane Americans,” to public opinion on particular issues, but that’s a separate issue from whether moral or practical issues should have priority. Sane Americans are sane, in your scheme, because they hold certain moral values. Values I agree with, in this case, but again separate issue.
The implicit warrant of Rumsfeld’s case for invading Iraq is this: America can invade anywhere we like whenever we decide we want to — the same warrant Clinton used to attack Kosovo; the same warrant Russia used to invade Georgia; the same warrant any imperial-minded power relies on when it crosses into someone else’s border without a threat of immediate attack (as defined according to the Geneva convention, I think). Do you agree with Rumsfeld’s claim? I don’t. I think the U.S. should be just one nation in the system or community of nations. We just don’t have the right to invade anyone we want whenever we say so. So Rumsfeld’s success in accomplishing his “war of choice” — i.e., the choice that the U.S. claims it can make whenever it feels like it — less interesting to me than the claim that Rumsfeld really has the “choice.” I would deny him that choice.
Comment by Lee — December 31, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
In making their case to the American people, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld argued (1) invading Iraq was necessary to protect the American people from a WMD attack, and (2) invading Iraq would make the world a safer place by bringing freedom democracy and stability to the Middle East. The American people supported the war — and reelected Bush & Co. — because they accepted the logic of these arguments. So my question is: Is protecting America from a WMD an important goal, in your view? And do you want tyranny for the people of Iraq, or freedom?
When you make the moral argument against the war, you’re essentially arguing that you are motivated by other imperatives — moral imperatives, such as restricting American power — that you believe should trump the imperatives to protect the American people from terrorist attacks and empower the Iraqi people. You’re saying, “Even if the Iraq War would accomplish these goals of protecting Americans and liberating Iraqis, we STILL shouldn’t do it, for other reasons.”
You may be right, but what’s the point of going there? It’s an unnecessary argument. Since the war hasn’t made us safer and hasn’t “liberated” the Iraqi people, there’s no point in arguing over whether it was moral. It’s like asking, “Would it be all right if I took a dump on my neighbor’s lawn in order to win $1 million.” We could debate whether it’s morally appropriate to “win” $1 million by taking a dump on a neighbor’s lawn, but it seems more relevant to debate WHY taking a dump on the neighbor’s lawn would cause someone to win $1 million.
Comment by Ian — December 31, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
Lee, you write, “My “moral” claim would be that regardless of the horrible suffering either side has suffered in this forty year plus conflict — whatever the questions are about “legitimacy” — neither side has a warrant to keep blowing each other up in a way that continues the cycle of violence.”
I’m sure nearly all Palestinians and nearly all Israelis would agree that they want to avoid continuing a cycle of violence. But what if we had gone to Abraham Lincoln in the midst of the Civil War and said, “you don’t have a warrant to keep blowing up the other side in a way that continues the cycle of violence”? Or what if we had gone to President Roosevelt in 1944 and said, “you don’t have a warrant to keep blowing up the other side in a way that continues the cycle of violence”? How would they have responded?
What if the United States had invaded Rwanda in 1993 to protect the population there from genocide, and then someone had told President Clinton that he didn’t have a warrant to attack Rwanda in a way that continues the cycle of violence?
For one thing, they would have said, correctly, that this whole “cycle of violence” would end immediately if the other side would simply concede defeat. They would argue that it’s morally irresponsible to ignore the issue of legitimacy when assigning responsibility for a cycle of violence. It’s unreasonable to ask people who feel victimized and frightened to basically give up the right to fight for their lives and freedoms, just to stop the “cycle of violence.”
Changing the subject, you write, “I think the U.S. should be just one nation in the system or community of nations. We just don’t have the right to invade anyone we want whenever we say so.”
Why? Don’t get me wrong — I agree with you. But is it possible that you believe these things about the limits of U.S. power for moral reasons, and I believe them for pragmatic ones?
I know somebody, for example, who would argue that the U.S. isn’t just one nation in a community of nations. He would argue that the U.S. is superior to other countries, that our right to protect ourselves trumps all other imperatives, and we have a right to do whatever we think is necessary to maintain our freedom.
You might condemn this friend of mine as morally evil; you’d argue the U.S. isn’t superior, and that we have to balance our desire to protect ourselves against other moral imperatives, such as limiting U.S. power. (He would respond that you are apparently in league with the enemy.)
I, on the other hand, would agree with him that we do have the right to do what it takes to protect ourselves. I would avoid the issue of whether the U.S. is superior, and basically make the case like this: America will be safer and more prosperous if we promote an international culture of peace, democracy and stability by subjecting ourselves to an international order. Even if we think it is in our short-term interests to invade other countries without broad international support, the long-term costs will be horrible for our security. In other words, belonging to a “community of nations” KEEPS US SAFE more effectively than violating international standards of behavior.
So now, instead of arguing about which one of us is evil or about whether the U.S. has a right to defend itself, we’re arguing over how best to keep this country safe. You might be able to publicly shame my friend with your argument, but I don’t think you could pursuade him — but I believe I might actually have a shot at winning him over to my side.
Comment by Ian — December 31, 2008 @ 9:21 pm