While Schlesinger talks of many different topics as far reaching as the electoral system, his main point is of the dangers of two war strategies. These two are that of preemptive war and fighting unilaterally. He explains the great dangers of these war policies and how they should not fit in the American democratic system.
First, he talks of the dangers of preemptive war. He cites it as dangerous because many times the reasons involved are not concrete facts. He uses the occupation in Iraq as his example of how the U.S. went in with the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction. Whether Bush and his cabinet really believed that or were just trying to find reasons to go after Suddam, going to war without responding to an offense is a bad policy according to Schlesinger. He believes this kind of policy also ignores the failures of the past. One of his take away points at the end of the book is that so many bad decisions can be adverted by simply looking in the past at similar situations. This review of history would show someone not to rush to judgement and pragmatically think through their plan. He goes on to say this is a part of the dangerous Bush Doctrine which he feels is wholly undemocratic.
While his problems with the doctrine include such aspects as intense interrogation and the way it gives the president as disproportionate amount of power, he mostly takes aim at the way it suppresses dissident. In a democratic society, especially at times of conflict, other views must be heard so we can make sure we going forward in the best manner possible. Bush created wiretapping measures that sparked fear in citizens and generally rode the wave of patriotism after 9/11. He feels this kind of environment punishes those who are against the war and chastises them as unpatriotic. Bush did this by increasing his powers to levels that Shlesinger felt were unprecedented.
He also takes aim at George W.'s unilateral war plans. He charts all previous U.S. war engagements in the 20th century and notes how the most effective ones were when we were assisted by other countries or came to the aid of others. Although not unprecedented given our unilateral history, a war like the war on terrorism is bound to fail according to Schlesinger because it has so little world support. This could be a combination of other countries not agreeing with the motives of the war or not feeling the war has a chance of succeding. I think another way Schlesinger uses the term unilateral is to talk about the president not staying within his circumscribed powers when waging war. He talks of the president using his legal counsel to try to get around laws and help him implement his war strategies in the middle east.
I agree with the dangers Schlesinger lists and how it is easy for a president to get around laws that we believe should be followed. Though, I do feel it is not always a serious offense as the president is supposed set a goal in the nations best interest and it is human nature to go about accomplishing it by any means possible. While, I ultimately believe it is preferable to go about it legally, one can not be faulted for trying too hard to as long as they have the nations best interests in mind. Of, course Bush is the prime example of why this is a tricky matter.
I also agree that especially during times of war and other big national issues, the media and citizens should be looking to welcome all views. We want to the decision correct and the only way to do that is to understand all the options and then come to your conclusion. This clearly did not happen well during the weeks and months after 9/11. It also is a step Bush did not take as he was sitting on Wolfowitz's doctrine and leapt at the opportunity to invade the middle east.
No comments:
Post a Comment