In Erich Fromm's after word to 1984 he claims that "the point which is essential for the understanding of Orwell's book, namely 'doublethink' is already with us and not merely something which will happen in the future, and in dictatorships." Many who read Orwell's renowned novels take them as a warning of the dangers which totalitarianism and Communism posses; an insight into the perils that lie in the restriction of individual liberty and thought. It might be observed, however, that doublethink has been employed by some in the seat of power in the world's greatest democracy and perpetrated upon its freedom-loving people.

A new American foreign policy has been developed by members of the Bush Administration; partly in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and in part as justification for the war in Iraq. This doctrine was primarily devised and promoted by President Bush's National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. In this policy, Dr. Rice claims a right to preemptive self-defense for the United States, as a last resort in dealing with the dangers posed in a post-9/11 world. This doctrine, espoused in a 33-page document called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," assumes the moral authority for the US in taking preemptive action against hostile nations and terrorist groups developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It includes the phrase "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively." While every American can certainly recognize the gravity of the threats that face our nation in the 21st Century and appreciate the difficulty of confronting and eliminating those threats, can we assume the verity of the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense and preemptive force? The words, preemptive and self-defense must be analyzed in and of themselves, and furthermore, the concepts that they present when used in conjunction must also be resolved.

Merriam Webster Online defines preempt as: "to prevent from happening or taking place, to seize upon to the exclusion of others; to take for oneself"

This first definition is the sentiment one most often associates with the preemption and certainly applies to the Bush doctrine, insofar as we seek to prevent attacks upon Americans and ours allies. The second definition, however, could cynically be applied to America's approach to Iraq, in that the Bush Administration sought to seize the resources and geopolitical importance of Iraq for itself. The concept of preemption, in its application to international affairs, is not a new one.

Emmerich de Vattel, a principal 18th Century theorist on international law declared in "The Law of Nations" that "a nation has the right to resist the injury another seeks to inflict upon it, and to use force against the aggressor. It may even anticipate the other's design. Be careful not to act upon vague and doubtful suspicions, lest it should run the risk of becoming itself the aggressor."

Preemptive force is inherently a unilateral force, one where the strongest decide who is right and what is wrong. Claiming this right to unilateral action in response to a perceived threat is a dangerous precedent. What might the Bush Administration say to an Indian government, frustrated and overwhelmed with Pakistani terrorist attacks in both Kashmir and in the heart of its cities, that seeks to use preemptive unilateral force against its perceived enemy? How does one distinguish between just and unjust acts of preemption in a civilized world?

Merriam Webster Online defines self-defense as: "a plea of justification for the use of force or for homicide; the act of defending oneself, one's property or a close relative

The former definition in this case must certainly be employed by the Bush Administration in its case for the war in Iraq, in justifying for the use of force and the deaths incurred by our invasion and liberation of Iraq. The latter definition strikes to the emotional impetus for the new Bush doctrine, in that we, as Americans, must defend ourselves, our interests, and our friends from future attacks at all costs. The cost, however, may in this case be the intellectual integrity of the American people, the global goodwill displayed toward Americans and the moral authority once held by the American government as an agent for freedom and good in the world.

The notion of self-defense, in this case, is ruled by an important precept;that the act of defending oneself, one's property or one's allies is predicated on a real, perceptible and provable threat to those interests. Under the United Nations charter, recourse to force is permitted in only two circumstances: under Article 51, allowing self-defense, or under the broad powers given to the UN Security Council "to decide what measures shall be taken...to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Daniel Webster, an American Secretary of State in the mid-19th century and renowned patriot, argued that anticipatory action was justified as self-defense only where "the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation." This standard for necessity has not been met in the Bush doctrine. Indeed, the threats facing America in the 1830's were not the same as those that face us today. However, the age of immediacy and information that we live in provided the Bush Administration with the resources to make the compelling case for hair-trigger action, which they have failed to do.

In order for the Bush Administration to classify its attack on Iraq as self-defense ( in that taking preemptive action against Iraq is actually a defensive one) the burden of proof in demonstrating the real or perceived threat posed by Iraq must be established so high as to verify the Iraqi threat as both imminent and tangible, and thereby place the US above reproach and beyond incertitude. Furthermore, the evidence must simultaneously prove Webster's necessity for immediate action and place the use of de Vattel's anticipatory force beyond doubt and suspicion. This burden of proof was simply not met in the buildup to war, and has not since been vanquished during our occupation of Iraq. This evidentiary gap, apparent now as it ever was, could not be filled by international rumor and intelligence gathered on demand. President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, and to a certain extent Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell distrusted the American people in their ability to determine the actuality of the case for war. Rather, they built their case on Iraq's false association with al Queda, Americans' fear of another terrorist attack, and uncertified assertions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

The doublethink continues in the Bush Administration through its foreign policies and into its campaign messages. The 'political' arm of the Bush Administration, embodied in Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, has taken to providing additional meanings to the Bush doctrine, which oftentimes contradict the official policies of the United States and the messages produced from other wings of the Administration.

While the Republican National Committee is issuing memos to its activists and running advertisements that encourage voters to call their Congressional representatives and "tell them to support the President's policy of pre-emptive self-defense," the Bush Administration simultaneously claims that it did not invoke a right of preemptive self-defense in going to war, but acted both under Resolution 1441 and the ‘continuing authority' of a UN resolution mandating the use of force in the first Gulf war 12 years earlier.

When President Bush appears before audiences of his conservative base he tells them that "In Afghanistan and Iraq, we gave ultimatums to terror regimes. Those regimes chose defiance, and those regimes are no more." Yet, when appearing before an international audience, he invokes the name of Democratic, alliance-building President Woodrow Wilson. "Like 11 presidents before me, I believe in the international institutions and alliances that America helped to form and helps to lead. The United States and Great Britain have labored hard to help make the United Nations what it is supposed to be: an effective instrument of our collective security."

That rhetoric does not seem consistent with the reality of unilateral preemptive action. In fact, a rift has appeared in the Bush camp between its diplomatic and political operatives, over the competing messages of the internationalist ideologue and the go-it-alone cowboy. Messages which conveniently ignore the tenets of the other, until such time as those concepts become useful.

In his essay "Politics & the English Language," Orwell wrote, "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." It seems that the thinkers, writers, and actors in the Bush Administration are getting better and better at political speech, as they have so recklessly and with such contempt for the American people's sensibilities, refused to convince us of the necessity for the war in Iraq. Instead, they have relied on misinformation and doublespeak--doublethink in action--to execute their agenda, hopefully not to any unforeseeable end.

Add your comment

Your name:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):
Word verification:
	Post Preview

yvComment v.1.19.2