Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion 
	
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
     Time for Barack Obama to Scrap Israel-Bush 
	Paranoia Doctrine 
  By Paul J. Balles
  Redress, 
	Al-Jazeera, ccun.org, May 24, 2010
 
  
	Ruled by paranoia: from the Truman to the Bush doctrine  
	Time for Barack Obama to choose paranoia or sanity 
	Paul J. Balles views the various doctrines that have guided US 
	foreign policy since World War II, from the Truman to the Bush doctrine. He 
	says that President Obama will have to decide to keep or scrap the Bush 
	doctrine, which “Israel and its supporters in America desperately want it 
	misused against Iran”.
  During the Vietnam War, preemptive 
	thinking was referred to as the domino theory. It held that if one country 
	fell under communist influence or control, its neighbouring countries would 
	soon fall like dominoes.
  The theory originated after World War II out 
	of Winston Churchill's wish to "deter aggression" by communist Russia. The 
	Truman doctrine, the policy of aiding nations defending themselves against 
	communist forces, followed.
  The Truman doctrine, to contain 
	communism, fed the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, as well as 
	Afghanistan. It also sired the police actions in places like Somalia and 
	Central and South America during the Cold War years.
  During each of 
	these military escapades, there were those who objected. Often they were 
	told to shut up. Some were dubbed unpatriotic and even traitorous for 
	questioning American war policies. Derogatory name-calling of those who 
	object to militarism has been a regular practice. "Wars and preemptive 
	strikes against countries that might be a future danger have always 
	empowered flag wavers with a sense of righteousness." Wars and preemptive 
	strikes against countries that might be a future danger have always 
	empowered flag wavers with a sense of righteousness. The Korean conflict saw 
	the rise of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his attacks on the character of 
	political opponents. McCarthy constantly made claims that there were 
	large numbers of communists and Soviet spies and sympathizers inside the 
	United States federal government and elsewhere.
  The senator and his 
	staff subjected Hollywood actors as well as academics to severe attacks. 
	McCarthy called them communists because they opposed the Korean War.
  
	To call someone a communist in those days was as bad as calling citizens 
	terrorists or terrorist supporters today. McCarthy was eventually castigated 
	and ousted for his rampage. Ironically, McCarthy himself did the terrorizing 
	by instilling fear in people of being called anti-American.
  Apart 
	from America's defeat in Vietnam, its containment theory in practice during 
	the Cold War led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. That collapse 
	vindicated Churchill and ushered in a disastrous policy of preemption. 
	 Preemption has in fact been part of American foreign policy for ages. As 
	president, George W. Bush put a new twist of "preventive" war on it.  
	That meant taking action well before an attack was imminent – invading a 
	country that was simply believed to be threatening.
  Originally, the 
	phrase "Bush doctrine" described a policy that assumed the right to secure 
	the country against terrorists or those who harbour terrorists. One writer 
	has said there were at least six Bush doctrines.
  It justified the 
	latest invasion of Afghanistan. Out of that arose the idea that the United 
	States should depose foreign regimes that represented a perceived threat to 
	the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate. 
	 At times, Bush used his doctrine to justify America acting alone and 
	contravening treaty obligations. At other times, it excused attacks against 
	countries harbouring terrorists.
  The Bush doctrine allowed for pre-mptive 
	attacks against countries or groups that might be a threat to the US or its 
	allies. It supported attacks against those believed to have weapons of mass 
	destruction or that might someday develop them.
  It even allowed for 
	American support of "democratic" countries as a strategy to combat 
	terrorism, meaning that the Bush administration would make decisions about 
	"regime change".
  In short, when the threat of weapons of mass 
	destruction wasn't the rationale for invading Iraq, the need to change the 
	regime from Saddam Hussein to a democracy called for a preemptive strike. 
	 Barack Obama, the preemptive Nobel Prize Winner as New York Times 
	columnist Maureen Dowd referred to him, will eventually have to decide on 
	whether to keep or scrap the Bush doctrine. Israel and its supporters in 
	America desperately want it misused against Iran. 
	 Paul J. Balles is a retired American university 
	professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many 
	years. For more information, see 
	http://www.pballes.com.
  
       
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |