Smith and Kidron\'s State of the World Atlas

¶ … Military and Terrorism

Terrorism and the Bush doctrine

In response to the terrorism attacks of 9-11, the government responded with a statement which has become known as the Bush doctrine. President Bush declared in no uncertain terms that this country would no longer pursue a stance of strength, deterrence, and containment, which had been the military strategy during the Cold War. He stated that this nation would now pursue all terrorists into whatever nation, hole or cave they hid. The Bush doctrine declared that all people groups, sects of tribes that conducted terrorist activities would be pursued, and destroyed. He included in his policy the promise that nations which harbored, and thus enabled terrorist cells to operate would also be considered enemies of this country, and therefore would be included within the scope of possible military targets. I believe that President Bush's doctrine is the correct stand for this time. His take no prisoners attitude was exactly the response that both America and the world needed to hear in order to understand that America takes the safety of its citizens very seriously.

After 8 years of military spending cuts by the Clinton administration, the world learned on lesson, that America was weak. Our posture to the world was one of carrying a large stick, but being unwilling to use it, even to defend itself. The 'meals on wheels' campaigns undertaken by the Clinton administration around the world, and the willingness to allow American troops to be under foreign, and UN command had created an image of America that we were unwilling, or unable to conduct a successful military campaign.

According to Smith and Kidron's State of the World Atlas, "since the Vietnam War and the protest which this war generated within the U.S.A., the general assumption (around the world) had been that the U.S. domestic opinion would not tolerate American deaths in foreign wars of intervention. Accordingly, official U.S. doctrines for the use of military force insisted on quick actions involving overwhelming force, and minimal U.S. exposure, and full support of the U.S. public." (See War and Force, p. 69) The Clinton administration continued the policy of military pacifism by only engaging military initiatives from the air, or with high tech computer guided munitions. When the military encountered resistance in a failed mission in Mogadishu, the defeat continued to portray the U.S. As a people unwilling to engage the possible reality of death that is a part of warfare.

However, I believe an understanding of the U.S. military policy that places so much dependence on the opinions of the U.S. public is a misunderstanding of the backlash against the Vietnam War, as well as a misunderstanding of the purpose of engaging public opinion. Vietnam was opposed because while we watched the battles on nightly news broadcasts, the country had no clear military agenda, no definition of victory, and no clear exit strategy. The killing went on, and on, and for the first time on national television, American was faced with the horrors of a difficult conflict.

Americans are resilient, and determined people. We fought for our independence, fought each other in a civil war, and then repelled the forces of Nazism and Communism form the continent of Europe twice. In these wars, the purpose was clear, the agenda was well defines, and we knew what victory would look like. Vietnam had none of these clarifying factors, and therefore the public opinion pendulum swung against the effort.

But the war on terrorism has been well defined by the President, and the administration is moving swiftly to back up its words. Washington is on the verge of enacting some of the most sweeping changes in law enforcement in a generation. Aimed at thwarting terrorists, the new laws could affect the lives of most Americans. According to the Christian Science monitor: "A draft wish list from the Bush administration now circulating in Congress asks for broad new powers to eavesdrop, control borders, and collect and share information about citizens, students, and visitors to the United States. "People always think such new laws won't apply to them, but it's tough if you get caught up in the dragnet," says Christopher Sands, director of the Canada Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies "We need these tools to fight the terrorist threat which exists in the United States," said Attorney General John Ashcroft last week. (see Chaddock, 2001)

Other branches of the government are also ramping up their abilities to fight terrorism. The Christian Science monitor reports that the CIA has been flooded with more than 60,000 applications since Sept. 11, the Central Intelligence Agency and its Pentagon counterpart are beefing up the ranks of spies. Their efforts reverse a decade of cutbacks under the Clinton administration. Since September, the agency has doubled the manpower of its counterterrorism center, and the Pentagon is also enlarging its corps of intelligence officers who specialize in gathering military secrets. (See Tyson, 2002) believe that support for a war is not the driving force for a military conflict. Our nation is not ruled by public opinion which can change almost as quickly as the weather patterns. The driving force of a military conflict is the national interest, determined by providing for the safety and well-being of the nation's citizenry. Americans do not like the idea of sending men and women into combat with the possibility of returning injured, maimed, or in military coffins. However when our national interest is at stake, and foreign terrorist demonstrate their willingness to destroy innocent lives in order to make some kind of radical fundamentalist statement, America is more than willing to put on our corporate army helmet, and go to war.