The Hypocrisy of Shrub & Co

Imagine this...a certain country [Country A] holds weapons of mass destruction (the infamous WMD), its leaders are openly hostile to another country [Country B] and they (the leaders) have a history of violence. Though once an elected leader, the head of state in Country A ignores the will of a majority of the population and has left a large portion of the population in poverty to fuel his war machine.

In this situation, some would argue that Country B has every right to attack Country A in an effort to prevent an attack by Country A on Country B. Some would say that this act of aggression, though seemingly against all international laws of war, was justified. Country A has it coming. Country B may argue that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction are so grave that preemption is warranted. In fact, Country B may argue that "military preemption" is legitimate when the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." After all, the posture and rhetoric of Country A make it clear that they have Country B in their sights. Why should Country B just wait around to be attacked?

At this point, you may think that I am talking about the US war with Iraq. After all, this clearly illustrates a situation in which the Bush Doctrine would be applicable. This was the argument our government made in convincing the country to go to war with Iraq. It also seems to be the argument that they are starting to build against Iran.

I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. But, that is beside the point. The example I gave above was not a theoretical justification for the US to attack Iraq or Iran or any other nation. Rather, it was an illustration of the flip side of the argument - in this case, the US is Country A and the threatened nation is Iran. Could they not use our own logic against us? Not likely. Clearly, there is no chance of the Iranian army invading the US to preempt a US attack on Iran. But, under the Bush Doctrine such an attack would theoretically be justified. That is the great flaw of the doctrine. However, there is another aspect of the Bush Doctrine that is more subtle, making it less applicable to other nations: that is, only the US has the right to preemptive attacks and preventive wars. We would not tolerate any other nation trying to use this justification to invade another sovereign nation. And yet, we find ourselves again in a situation where the government has started to put together a story about a country bringing harm to US soldiers in Iraq. The writing is on the wall - the next step will be showing Iran as an "emerging" threat. I expect talk of nuclear capabilities will soon enter the fray if it has not already. I only hope that Congress and the American people can be stronger this time. We went to war based on flawed logic and bad intelligence once, I hope it does not happen again.

As our great leader would say, "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."