John Newhouse: Analysis of the Bush Administration Response to the Terrorists Attacks of September 11, 2001
John Newhouse provides a well structured and reasoned analysis of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting war in Iraq in his book Imperial America. He begins by pointing out the diplomatic errors that were made almost immediately after the terrorist attacks. Essentially, he argues that the concern for the United States across the world and overt empathy expressed by many nations provided several opportunities for the president to drastically improve relations with France, North Korea, Iran, Israel, as well as other Middle Eastern nations that were quickly squandered. He notes with respect to Iran, "Washington's harsh reaction, notably Bush's 'axis of evil' remark in his 2002 State of the Union address, damaged prospects for beginning to repair a bilateral relationship with Ira, a relationship with surpassing strategic importance," (Newhouse 4). Additionally, the United States' unilateral response to this terrorism was both misguided in that it weakened the international community and in that it was a strategic response to a non-strategic problem. Newhouse writes, "Passive defense based on agreements among and between nations and international bodies is essential to li
In this light, Newhouse is right to say, "Regime change is seldom an answer. . . . Regime change is an attitude, not a policy," (Newhouse7). Importantly, this is not merely Newhouse's opinion; nor is it a notion cooked-up in the post September 11 political furnace. Newhouse quotes Snowcroft as having warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken," (Newhouse 47). Nevertheless, the Bush administration's explicit and defined stance with regard to invading Iraq exhibited not a word of concern for international politics or stability; instead, only emotional appeals were made as justification. Donald Rumsfeld, when asked what is different after September 11 that validates a precipitous attack on Iraq, responded, "What's different? What's different? What's different is 3,000 people were killed," (Newhouse 47). Undeniably absent from such rationale is an analysis of precisely what invasion could ever accomplish: the appeal is purely to revenge. So, the stated rationale for invading Iraq is elementally lacking in a number of respects. However, the very unrealistic prospect of actually fighting terrorism may fall directly into the hands of the unstated rationale for invading Iraq; namely, resources. Newhouse seems to imply that after Iraq, perhaps Iran is next. And why not? Naturally, it does not possess the same level of business-enhancing opportunities provided by the substantial oil reserves in Iraq, but it is still "in a bad neighborhood," (Newhouse 77). Accordingly, it could be just as associated with terrorists as Iraq ever was. The revisionist justification for Iraq, additionally, could be easily applied to Iran as well; specifically, that the United States needs to instill a new, more democratic government in the region. If our best defense truly is a good offense, and our best method for fostering democracy is not through diplomacy but through war, then there is little reason not to invade Iran. Applying the Bush administration's reasoning to any number of foreign affairs is a frightening exercise; it suggests that we should immediately involve ourselves in dozens of conflicts worldwide. So, the Bush line of reasoning for entering Iraq depended upon two criteria: an eye for an eye, and defending against future terrorist attacks. Even though terrorism is punished within our nation on the basis of the individuals who perpetrate it, on an international level Bush's response is to associate it with the political and religious settings that he perceives as breeding this violent infection. The method to preventing terrorism, to Bush, is a two pronged attack: "While we recognize that our best defense is a good offense, we are also strengthening A
Some common words found in the essay are:
United States', United Nations, What's What's, White House's, Nation Bush, World War, Applying Bush, Iran Naturally, Newhouse7 Importantly, Iran Washington's, september 11, invading iraq, bush administration, terrorist attacks, weapons mass, bush administration's, united nations, declaring war, weapons mass destruction, mass destruction, legitimacy invading iraq, regime change, rationale invading iraq,
Approximate Word count = 1856
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
