G W Bush and the War on Terrorism: First Phase

GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM,

FIRST PHASE: THE AFGHAN WAR AND THE SECOND GULF WAR

UNIT 18A

Background:

George Bush entered the White House in January 2001 at a critical turning point in

American and, indeed, in world history. Only a few analysts/scholars recognized this at the time, particularly Samuel P. Huntington and Robert Kaplan. These prophets had been warning for years that the world was far different from the one our poll-reading politicians, liberal academia, and media talking heads were selling us. Huntington and Kaplan dared to challenge the prevailing “politically correct” view that religion and culture, not economics and politics, are the real determinates of history. September 11, 2001 exposed the bankruptcy of liberal orthodoxy, making brutally clear to Americans that there were forces at work in the world, at least in the Islamic portion of it, about which we were grossly ignorant and unprepared to deal with. We had naively supposed that with the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989 and the unleashing of Clinton’s globalization drive in the 1990’s that Thomas Friedman’s vision of an “Americanized” world was all but an accomplished fact.

I. THE WORLD SITUATION IN JANUARY 2001

A. MEGA TRENDS IN EUROPE:

1. Moving towards ______

France is heading this effort.

2. Is more supportive of the Palestinians and less supportive of Israel than the U.S. for the

following reasons:

a. ______

b. ______

c. ______

d. ______

e. ______

B. CHINA:

1. Its number one foreign policy objective: ______

2.Its number 2 objective: ______

C. RUSSIA

1. A “hybrid state”: ______

2. Relations immediately after 911: ______

3. However, Putin strongly opposed U.S. war against Iraq.

D. MIDDLE EAST

1. ______

2. ______

E. TERRORISM

1. Terrorist organizations, chiefly al Qaeda, continued to grow and conduct clandestine

guerilla operations against the U.S., believing that if America bled, America would

run.

2. This phenomenon coincided with a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism throughout

the Muslim world, and ironically, this resurgence was subsidized by the so-called

“moderate” regime of Saudi Arabia. [See Dori Gold’s new book]

II. BUSH AND HIS FOREIGN POLICY “DREAM TEAM”

A. GEORGE W. BUSH

1. Had no rigid views on foreign policy, but unlike Bill Clinton, is interested in foreign

policy. He told a New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in June, “I may not be

able to tell you exactly the nuance of the East Timorian situation, but I’ll ask people

who’ve had experience like Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, or Dick Cheney. I am smart

enough to know what I don’t know, and I have good judgment about who will be either

telling me the truth, or has got some agenda that is not the right agenda.” [Quoted in

Heilbrunn, World Policy Journal, 99/2000]

2. In his first foreign policy speech on September 23, 1999 Bush attacked the Clinton

administration for its “open-ended deployments and unclear military missions.” He

also strongly opposed “nation building.”

3. Called for increased military spending and firmly believes we should move ahead with

ballistic missile defense (even saying that it would be his number-one priority). [We

now know that behind this push, which was loudly condemned by the left in this

country and abroad, was the knowledge that North Korea was violating the terms of

the 1994 Accord and would soon be producing nuclear weapons.]

4. Staunchly pro-Israel. Among his possible motivations: his envangelical Protestant

theology and his determined opposition to terrorist organizations after 911.

B. SECRETARY OF STATE, GEN. COLIN POWELL

1. Charismatic, a genuine American hero, extremely articulate, and a patient and

determined infighter.

2. Powell’s autobiography does not give many clues concerning his view of the world

and how key issues should be addressed.

C. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, CONDOLEZA RICE [Heilbrunn, World

Policy Journal, Winter 99/2000]

1. Reluctant to intervene abroad, especially for humanitarian purposes, in contrast to the

Reaganites such as Paul Wolfowitz or Richard Pearle.

2. Realist: The U.S. needs to conserve its power, and even build it up to deter potential

foes. Getting involved abroad in messy, open-ended, conflicts is a sure recipe for

sapping American strength. She attacked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s

characterization of the U.S. as the “indispensable nation,” arguing instead that

American arrogance of power can be self-defeating.

a. Russia: the U.S. needs to focus on security issues with Russia, not try to transform it

into a liberal capitalist democracy.

b. China: Optimistic about China. Sees market forces as creating a freer and more

democratic China. Does not see Chinese as friends or enemies. “China has its own

interests. It’s a great power in the traditional sense. You need a broadly based

policy [to] try to encourage economic liberalization, compete where you must on

security issues,” while recognizing that the U.S. has “true strategic partners in the

region.”

D. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD

1. Dedicated to radically transforming the military into a more high technology, special

operations, highly mobile force and depend less on heavy armor etc. necessary to stop

the Russians on the plains of Central Europe. Committed to developing a “lily pad”

basing concept under which the U.S. would have rights to using remote (from urban

areas) bases for launching military operations anywhere on the globe.

2. According to Alan Sipress, Washington Post Staff Writer, Rumsfeld “has more of a

voice in shaping Middle East policy than his predecessors” because the Pentagon

Rumsfeld and his key lieutenants (Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense

Douglas J. Feith) have been given a seat at interagency discussions over the Middle

East conflict. In recent years, the peace process was largely the purview of the State

Department and the White House. [“Policy Divide Thwarts Powell in Mideast Effort,

April 26, 2002]

III. 9.11.02 AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM: FIRST PHASE

A. THE BUSH DOCTRINE, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

1. “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these act and those

who harbor them.” Significance of Bush’s statement was three-fold:

a. Although the administration had been working for months on a new policy for

dealing with al Qaeda, this was the first time Bush had enunciated his anti-terrorism

policy as president.

b. Scope: committed the U.S. to a broad, vigorous and potentially long war against

terrorism, rather than a targeted retaliatory strike (a la Clinton).

c. Policy was made without consulting most of his national security team, including

Cheney and Powell. [no source]

3. Doctrines are designed to deal with a major potential or actual security threat to the

U.S. so as to make clear to friends and foes alike what the U.S. will do. It is designed

to remove ambiguity and give focus to a major foreign policy shift. [Repko]

4. Presidential declarations on foreign policy have typically been forged in the State

Department. But the Bush doctrine has its roots in the Pentagon.

B. PHASE ONE: THE WAR AGAINST AL QAEDA AND THE TALIBAN IN

AFGHANISTAN

1. Goal: Oust the Taliban and Al Qaeda from its remote base in Afghanistan.

a. No one thought that this could be done without the U.S. launching a Russian style

massive ground invasion that would be costly in lives and possibly another Vietnam.

2. This effort required the active support of Pakistan. In the end, Musharif risked

everything and backed the U.S. in its war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

3. Afghanistan became the laboratory for employing the Rumsfield strategy of relying on

special opps (note the extraordinary cooperation between the CIA and the military),

local militias (we bought their loyalty), and precision air strikes.

4. The significance of the Afghanistan campaign:

a. The speed and totality of the U.S. victory communicated to the world that the U.S.

military had achieved a new threshold. It could project its power in blitzkrieg-like

fashion to even the remotest corners of the globe.

b. It opened the door to phase two of the administration’s grand strategy. To wage

war against Iraq and reorder the Middle East.

IV. PHASE TWO: THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ

A. THE BUSH DOCTRINE, SEPTEMBER 2002

“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.”

1. The strategy of preventative war had been developed while the Republican Party was

out of power during the Clinton administration.

2. Under it, the U.S. is willing to use its military and economic supremacy to protect its

interests and assert its values with or without direct provocation. And, it is willing to

act with or without the backing of the international alliances that it helped create after

WWII.

3. The doctrine of pre-emption is a logical extension of the doctrine developed during the

Clinton administration that the U.S. would not allow a rival power to compete with the

U.S. for global supremacy. In other words, we were not going to re-enter another

Cold War era and hope that all would turn out well a second time.

B. THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ WOULD BE THE FIRST PREVENTATIVE

WAR IN U.S. HISTORY, THE FIRST TIME THE NATION HAS ATTACKED

WITHOUT BEING STRUCK FIRST.

1. The decision to go to war with Iraq—to launch the nation’s first preventative war—

was a defining moment in U.S. history, much as 1776 was or the decision to enter

WWI. “This is the boldest roll of the dice any president has done in the 30 years I’ve

been a senator, and I would argue since 1947,” as the Cold War began, says Delaware

Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “It

is bold and it is dangerous.” [Susan Page, USA TODAY, 3/17/03]

However, presidential historian, Robert Dallek says that “What we’re doing is not

entirely without precedent, but it really is on a much larger scale.” He cites Kennedy

secretly backing the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, Johnson’s invasion of the

Dominican Republic in 1965, and Eisenhower’s use of the CIA to help solidify the

pro-Western regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran. But, none of those

conflicts involved launching a war or declaring a new doctrine. [Susan Page, USA

TODAY, 3/17/03]

2. The UN debate was so fierce because many nations, especially France, saw it as being

about more than Iraq. “We are defining a method to resolve crises,” French Foreign

Minister Dominique de Villepin warned the Security Council in early March (03).

3. In the end, the U.S. shocked and awed the world by its high tech/special opps/

conventional blitzkrieg and utter destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime in the record

time of less than a month.

4. The war with Iraq concerned far more than ridding the world of a brutal dictator and

terminating his WMD program. It was also about creating a new reality in the region

and setting the stage for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In other words, the

Bush administration apparently believes that the road to peace in Jerusalem runs

through Baghdad.

V. THE ROADMAP TO PEACE BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS

A. FIRST THINGS FIRST: THE BUSH STRATEGY

1. Bush came into office determined to avoid Bill Clinton’s policy of hands-on,

round-the-clock engagement in the ME. Instead, he was willing to allow the

adversaries to fight it out.

2. Bush didn’t pay much attention to the Israeli-Palestinian war until it threatened to

derail his war. The administration apparently thought that it could forge ahead with its

war on terrorism, this time targeting Iraq, while ignoring the escalating violence

between Israel and the Palestinians (the death toll by mid-March of over 1500 was

higher than that of the first intifadeh which lasted from 1987 to 1993). Bush

dispatched Dick Cheney on an 11-country road show in mid-March through the Arab

world to promote the administration’s plans to force a showdown with Iraq.

3. THE CHENEY MISSION, MARCH 2002

a. From London to Amman to Cairo Cheney was hammered with the same angry

refrain: the U.S. must intervene in the conflict now, demand that Sharon pull all his

troops out of Palestinian-held land, and forcibly drag the two sides into something

resembling a cease-fire. [Romesh Ratnesar, Time, March 25, 02, p.37] Arab

complaints can be summed up in the words of one Egyptian official: “This is

topping our agenda because it is the core of all the turmoil.” [Time, 37]

b. Though Saddam Hussein is widely reviled by neighboring moderate regimes, these

leaders worry that supporting a U.S.-led war to remove him while the Palestinian

struggle continued to blaze would invite popular revolts in their countries. [Time

39]

2. Bush decided to send special envoy Gen Anthony Zinni back to the region partly

because “there was a danger that the violence could hijack the Cheney trip. We

thought it was useful to show we were dealing with the issues.” [Time, 38] Said

a civilian official in the Pentagon, The worse things get between Israel and the

Palestinians, the fewer options we have with Iraq.” [39]

3. In a word, Bush has apparently decided that America’s security, now more than ever,

demands that the U.S. take steps toward bringing an end to this perilous conflict.

C. THE BUSH SUMMIT WITH SHARON AND ______, JUNE 2003

Copyrighted 5/29/03: AFR

All rights reserved

C. THE ARAB SUMMIT IN BERUIT, LEBANON, MARCH 02

1.

D. THE POWELL TRIP [see Friedman’s “George W. Sadat”]

1. Purpose: to stop the violence of the Palestinian intifada, an essential first step to

resolving the Palestinian problem. [Martin Indyk, FA, Jan/Feb 02, p. 5]

1