The Bush Doctrine, Part Deux

The Iraq Study Group has recently published its recommendations to President Bush detailing how it thinks complete and total disaster may be averted in Iraq. Among its suggestions, the ISG advises the U.S. talk to Syria and Iran order to persuade them to cut down on illegal arms shipments and to stop plaing cross-border musical chairs with terrorists. Generally, the ISG wants to see the U.S. move toward more consensus building.

I am not opposed to the U.S. "talking" to Syria or Iran, per se. That is, simply talking will not hurt anyone. After all, we did open up to the Soviet Union and China, as James Baker pointed out (despite Condoleeza Rice's weak attempts to cast it in a different light). We are now friendly with Vietnam, and in fact proceeding to normalize trade relations with that country.

The U.S. policy of containment was uninterrupted while we sat at the table (or debated) with the Soviets during the 1960's, 70's, 80's and 90's; we kept building our arsenal and working to bolster Democratic Europe.

There are two important distinctions, however. First, Syria and Iran (even combined) are no Soviet Union. Second, they are nowhere near to our equals in terms of global hegemony. These are two points Ms. Rice might have made more clear (if I may be so bold).

So from the beginning, we must ask ourselves: "Is it worth sitting at the negotiating table with a far lesser power?" The question must be asked because power is wielded through perception as much as through military might. The U.S. should think long and hard before granting Syria or Iran the stature its neighbors would surely envy and respect if we agreed to sit at the table with them. In fact, it might send precisely the wrong message to the region. Mullahs, Clerics, Kings and Radical elements will think "If I raise a big stink, finance terrorists and build nukes, I will force the Americans to negotiate with me and wrestle great concessions from them, praise Allah, Jihad, Jihad."

So I have my own recommendation. This may silence the calls to speak with Syrian and Iran, perhaps even discourage them to come to the table with us. Furthermore, if followed, this may even embolden fringe reformists and moderates withing these countries out of sheer terror.

Let's call it the Bush Doctrine, Part Deux, because only a President could make such a bold statement, and frankly, he's not up for re-election, so why not have some fun?

I. Terrorism
A. The United States declares all Islamo-Fascist Terrorists its enemy
B. The United States will stop at nothing to stamp out Islamo-Fascist Terrorism
C. The United States considers nations harboring Terrorists as guilty as the Terrorists themselves
D. The United States will not be deterred by other nation's perception of sovereignty while combating Terrorism
E. The United States is not above sending Special Operations Teams to any country in order to surgically removed Terrorist elements
F. The United States has the capability to shut down sea, air and commerce, which can and will result in devastating economic loss.
G. The United States thinks it is funny that you consider your own fellow Muslims, from a different religious sect, to be 'worse' than us. You self-loathing pricks.

II. Nuclear Weaponry
A. The United States is in possession of many thousands of nuclear warheads, more than enough to annihilate any Terrorist state.
B. The United States will not tolerate the proliferation of Nuclear Arms or technology to any Islamo-Fascist Terrorist Group or Regime.
C. In the event that a nuclear bomb were to explode within United States territory, the United States would immediately assume that Iran and/or North Korea have supplied such weaponry. The aforementioned countries would thus be on the receiving end of an air bombardment of startling proportions, indiscriminate in its scope, save that the payloads reach targets within the border of the aforementioned countries.
D. If the scenario described above took place, terrorists slash Islamo-Fascists worldwide will be comforted to know that their fellow countrymen will also be forced to emigrate from the United States back to their homeland. There they may bask with their comrades and catch some radioactive rays while reading the Koran in the afterglow from the nuclear holocaust-ridden Caliphate.

III. Israel
A. One of the few nations in the Middle East to display discipline, Democratic values and a love of life, any attack on Israel is considered an attack on the United States
B. Terrorists are advised that their time would be better spent studying... to be anything but a Terrorist, rather than searching for Zionist scapegoats.
C. Palestinians should distance themselves from Terrorism, Terrorists, and mainstream Terrorist causes. This will only hinder their struggle for nationhood.
D. Islamic fanatics should keep denying the Holocaust, it's actually great for our side because then your side sounds even more insane, your side loses credibility, your side becomes the bigger laughing stock, your side loses allies, and your side turns more of our Doves into Hawks. Keep up the good work!
E. You can also keep David Duke.

IV. Miscellaneous
A. We beat Left-Wing Dictators, so we will beat Islamic Fascist Terrorism
B. We beat Right-Wing Fascists, so we will beat Islamic Fascist Terrorism
C. We beat the Great Depression, so we will beat Islamic Fascist Terrorism
D. We have a lot more money than you have, so we will beat Islamic Fascist Terrorism
E. We have to be Politically Correct in this day and age, even though you do not. Do not mistake our diplomatic words with ambivalence or pacifism.
F. We have to abide by International Law, even though you do not. Do not make the mistake of thinking that we won't do what it takes if the fate of our country is on the line.
G. We have begun weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, and in the future, that process will accelerate. The United States is rich in labor, innovation and ingenuity, we have survived thus far without sufficient domestic supplies of energy, but we are beginning to generate more and more of our own energy. The same cannot be said for the vast majority of Muslim nations, whose people subsist in near-feudal societies, and are given hand-outs from the State (thanks to windfall oil revenue) on a level not seen in the West since the Roman Empire two thousand years ago.


President Bush will not make this speech, nor will he outline these clauses. However, fanatical Muslim leaders and Terrorists would do well to know that although we have not said it, there would be no hesitation to reciprocate with extreme prejudice if another 9/11 occurred, especially involving Nuclear or Biological weapons.

I'd say it would send Iran and North Korea back to the Stone Age, but they're not too far from it right now, especially in their way of thinking.

As usual, slippery Pete, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has stirred up controversy with his renewed calls to wipe Israel out, and repeated denials that millions of Jews were slaughtered during World War II (despite the evidence, and despite that the German perpetrators of these crimes vigorously affirm the atrocities occurred).

Slippery Pete Ahmadinejad is generating buzz in the short term among the utmost fringe elements of 'Academia' - outcasts and neurotic douche bags. In the long term, he is damaging his country, costing its citizens much needed credibility in the world, and causing the West, the United States in particular, to redouble its efforts to sideline this Muslim country that otherwise could have quite a bit of potential if it had better leadership.