A pure critique of the "dubya doctrine"

So, I’ve been thinking about my brother's explanation of the word "imminent" when used in relation to the invasion of Iraq. The administration has carefully avoided describing the W.M.D. threat as "imminent." Liberal websites quote statements and press conferences that get those in the administration close to using the specific word, but upon careful review, they are dancing around it -- usually they prefer the phrase "grave and gathering" to "imminent." Rob pointed out to me that according to international standards, countries are justified in attacking in response to a perceived "imminent" threat. But, the administration denies that they attacked Iraq in response to an "imminent" threat.

So, I admit that I did not know that the specific word “imminent” meant anything in particular, other than just a description of the risk of danger. I honestly thought, if there was any difference at all, that “grave and gathering” is maybe and only a small time aspect away from “imminent,” although that time difference did not appear material to me. Now I know why journalists keep wanting to pin the word on the administration; I also now know why the administration and its apologists so vehemently deny the application of the word.

So, it must then mean that the administration purposely and specifically intended to go to war WITHOUT a legally justifiable cause. Or, at least, a cause that met the previously accepted standards for declaring war. I therefore must understand that dubya has declared a new legal standard for war – the dubya doctrine.

Next: I do recognize the power and right of American presidents to unilaterally declare new foreign policy doctrines. There’s a long history of such declarations, dating at least to the Monroe Doctrine.

Next, in response to 9/11 and the nebulous threat of Al Queda terrorism in particular, I also do not have any inherent problem with a new doctrine in response. Seems perfectly appropriate to react to a new threat in a new way.

But. (And I know this is the point at which my bellicose relatives will disagree with me.) If you are going to either violate internationally accepted standards for invading a sovereign country, by declaring any specific threat to be only “grave and gathering,” as opposed to “imminent,” then it is my position that there should be a higher standard of proof of that threat. Reaching into my field, the phrase that comes to mind is “clear and convincing.” Which is less than “beyond any reasonable doubt.” But certainly more than “because I felt like it and wanted to.”

An example comes to mind. I know you all know the specifics much better than I do, but wasn’t it in the 1980s that the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor? Somewhere close – Syria, Iraq, Iran – I don’t recall where it was located at. That appears to my vague recollection to be a real threat that may not have been imminent. But it was real, it was important, and in the right circumstances they were entirely justified in just taking it out.

So, how do I apply these new-found realizations to the dubya doctrine? First – the evidence was beyond shaky. The threat was non-existent, literally. But, this is largely a critique of the intelligence community, not the personalities of the administration itself.

Next: dubya and his cronies pushed for support to a conclusion they had reached. That’s a sign of a bad decision-making process in general and also small personal intelligence of those at the highest level in particular.

Next, and this is the part that pisses me off, dubya and his cronies purposely and intentionally “fixed” their arguments without strong evidence. That’s the exact wording that the Downing Street memo reflects. And the extreme reaction that Rove/Libby displayed in response to the Wilson editorial also reflects a known weakness in their position.

Last: words do matter. But so do moral absolutes. The problem with the close parsing displayed in the dancing around the word “imminent” reminds me all too well of Clintonian squeezing of words. Or, similarly, the reliance on the distinction between “clandestine” and “covert.” I call that horseshit. The dubya doctrine was not applied well. And the outing of a CIA agent – covert, clandestine, secret, or double secret – is just plain wrong. And the deliberate discussion of CIA agents to friendly journalists was and is contrary to U.S. interests – even if the master of political strategy thought it was the best way to get at somebody not toeing the administration’s talking points line.

One final somewhat unrelated subject. I don’t have a problem with death. I am all in favor of the death penalty, especially when applied to bind-torture-kill sickos. I recognize that abortion is akin to murder – but I don’t think the government gets to take that decision away from all mothers, all of the time. I completely and absolutely believe families should get to decide to pull the plugs on relatives in a permanent vegetative state – without any interference from the full federal government into that awful decision. And I fully support U.S. soldiers killing each and every known terrorist, one Al Queda tent, cavern or cave at a time.

But life is valuable. It shouldn’t be taken lightly. Invading Iraq – thereby causing the deaths of nigh-upon thousands of U.S. personnel, and thousands and thousands of Iraqis – was wrong. Legally unsupportable, according to accepted international standards. And unsupportable, even under the dubya doctrine, based upon the false, flighty, and trumped-up intelligence used to support the war.

And causing the deaths of thousands and thousands of people, American or otherwise, without just cause, is morally and absolutely wrong.