Another Fallen Soldier

Our condolences go out today to Boston University Professor, Andrew Bacevich, whose son Andrew, a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army, died yesterday as the result of a bombing in Iraq.

Thanks to the "surge" undertaken by the Bush Administration, the death toll for U.S. forces will soon enough reach 4000. This is bad enough on its own. However, as Professor Bacevich -- a West Point graduate, a retired Army Lt. Colonel, and a staunch opponent of the war since its "conception" -- has eloquently argued, no matter how terrible the specific consequences of this ridiculous adventure may become, we must not lose sight of the "pernicious" structural problems that underlie it, specifically the so-called "Bush Doctrine" of "preventive war." This doctrine, which is a close relative to the many ideological impositions described by Naomi Wolf, in the article to which JPL linked below, is entirely insupportable. It is, as Bacevich says, "immoral, illicit, and imprudent," and is a serious affront to American principles and international law. Here is Bacevich, from a March 1st Op-Ed piece, in which he laments the costs already accrued, and warns against the potential costs of allowing such a doctrine to stand as policy:

Today, Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration. The war's costs, already staggering, continue to mount. Violence triggered by the US invasion has killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. We cannot fully absolve ourselves of responsibility for those deaths.

Our folly has alienated friends and emboldened enemies. Rather than nipping in the bud an ostensibly emerging threat, the Iraq war has diverted attention from existing dangers (such as Al Qaeda) while encouraging potential adversaries (like Iran) to see us as weak.

The remedy to this catastrophic failure lies not in having another go -- a preventive attack against Iran, for example -- but in acknowledging that the Bush Doctrine is inherently pernicious. Our reckless flirtation with preventive war qualifies as not only wrong, but also stupid. Indeed, the Bush Doctrine poses a greater danger to the United States than do the perils it supposedly guards against.

We urgently need to abrogate that doctrine in favor of principles that reflect our true interests and our professed moral values. Here lies an opportunity for Congress to make a difference.

The fifth anniversary of President Bush's West Point speech approaches. Prior to that date, Democratic leaders should offer a binding resolution that makes the following three points: First, the United States categorically renounces preventive war. Second, the United States will henceforth consider armed force to be an instrument of last resort. Third, except in response to a direct attack on the United States, any future use of force will require prior Congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The legislation should state plainly our determination to defend ourselves and our allies. But it should indicate no less plainly that the United States no longer claims the prerogative of using "preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses."

Declaring the Bush Doctrine defunct will not solve the problems posed by Iraq, but it will reduce the likelihood that we will see more Iraqs in our future. By taking such action, Congress will restore its relevance, its badly tarnished honor, and its standing in the eyes of the American people.

Bacevich and his son, unlike the President, both served in the military in combat situations. Now, I've never thought military service ought to be any kind of litmus test for viability as a maker of policy. But the childish snickering and faux-somber tones of admonition that so often accompany Bush's proclamations certainly do make one wish that the current "Commander-in Chief," as he is so fond of calling himself, had at least had some experience in life that would demonstrate to him that this isn't all just some kind of game.