Shortly after 9/11, our President announced "The Bush Doctrine", which basically stood for the proposition that America can and should declare war on any country that harbors terrorists. Presumably, this was some way of justifying the invasion of Afghanistan, which didn't need very much justification. Still, it is curious that no one ever took issue with this "doctrine". Is it really a doctrine in the first place? Do you simply announce a doctrine? Or is it something that describes the overarching principle that shapes events, developing through experience over time? If it is a doctrine, don't you have to follow it? Are there exceptions? What if France harbors terrorists? Or Canada? Or the United States? Cuba recently accused the United States of harboring terrorists. Does that mean Cuba has the right to invade the U.S.? And is it really something we want to be doing? Don't we have enough problems? Do we really want to commit the human lives and other resources to invade every country that harbors terrorists? We would scarcely have time, money, or people to do much of anything else.

Another untested proposition was the idea that, after the invasion of Iraq, Americans would be embraced as heroes. As liberators. Now, looking back, people say that it was lack of foresight. Intelligence failures. Lack of planning. But wasn't it completely foreseeable? Wasn't it obvious? Wasn't it basic common sense? Yes, perhaps, for the first week or so, there would be some euphoria or elation. But wasn't it fairly predictable that, at some point, a fairly large portion of the population was going to resent our presence? How would you feel? How would you react? You have been living in a deeply religious country, with your own neighbors, and your own customs, and now all of the sudden you are living under a bunch of white Christians, with guns, from half way around the world, telling you what to do in your own home. How long before the red-blooded American pulls out his guns? Two weeks, tops? Before we start to say: "Thanks for everything. But if you really believe in self-government, get the hell out of here and leave us alone."

And finally we have the new Domino theory. Never articulated before the war. When it was about the Axis of Evil - (and, by the way, why haven't we invaded Iran or North Korea?) - or weapons of mass destruction. The idea that if you bring democracy and freedom to Iraq, and expose it to the entire region, it will catch on, like wild fire, and the Muslim people will rise up, and demand to be free. This may turn out to be true. The ends may justify the means. But is there anyone who believes that this is sound as a matter of foreign policy? That America should invade other countries, overthrow their governments, and force them to convert to capitalism and democracy?

Assuming, arguendo, that this is a good idea, it certainly can't be called "conservative". The conservative view is that political change should occur slowly, as part of an evolutionary process, as opposed to violence, social upheaval or revolt.

Plus, (assuming, arguendo, that it's a good idea), do we really have the resources? Is that what you want to risk your children's lives for? The freedom of the Iraqi people? Don't we have enough problems at home to deal with?

Moreover, if we're right, and the Middle East is ready for democracy, can't you effectively accomplish the same thing with TV? At some point, in the 80s, my friend Russell Jaffe said something that always stuck with me. I don't remember the exact words, but it was something along the lines of: "You know, if you really want to defeat communism, you don't need to spend all of this money on nukes. All you need is McDonalds. Put a few McDonalds in Russia, and once people see how easy it can be, they will abandon their notions of communism and demand a change."

If American capitalism and democracy is empirically, objectively, irrefutably better than life in Iran, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else, then why don't we just do whatever is necessary to expose them to the truth, through TV?

In the Autobiography of Malcolm X, there is a great quote from Elijah Mohammad: "If you hold up a glass of clean water and a glass of dirty water, you don't have to tell someone the difference. They can see for themselves which glass is dirty and which glass is clean."



[Note - The views expressed on this political blog and legal blog are the personal views of Steve Herman and are not intended to represent the views of Herman Herman Katz & Cotlar, LTLA, TLPJ, the Civil Justice Foundation, or any other organization.]

What gives us the right to invade a country and shove democracy down it's throat, then convince ourselves that we aresaving its people without regard to the fact that they and their culture have survived for thousands of years without our assistance and interference?


[Printed in Newsweek, Nov. 14, 2005, p.18.]

[I personally disagree with Ms. Olds, but find the following exchange interesting:]

From: Leah Guerry
Subject: A Poet with Principles

----Original Message-----
From: Vimala Rodgers [mailto:teachers@iihs.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:45 AM

The letter that follows is an open letter from the poet Sharon Olds to Laura Bush declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book Critics Circle Award in Washington, DC in September. Sharon Olds, winner of National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at NYU, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. The ending of the letter is both chilling and eloquent.

Dear Mrs. Bush,

I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House. In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents--all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.

And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers.

Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students--long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.

When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty and wit--and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.

So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country-with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain--did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted language, and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism--the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.

I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness--as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing--against this undeclared and devastating war. If I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration. What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.

So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.

Sincerely,
SHARON OLDS