instagram pinterest linkedin facebook twitter goodreads facebook circle twitter circle linkedin circle instagram circle goodreads circle pinterest circle

Strictly Speaking

Applying National Policy

POLICY

Whether national or corporate or episcopal or municipal, a policy is a set of fixed guidelines often determined by political preference or ideology or legal precedent by which major emerging decisions are made, often based on the specific doctrines that are in turn formulated by those currently in power. Consider former President George W. Bush’s – well, okay, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s – policy of pre-emptive invasion of nations representing threats: (1) with ties to al Qaeda; (2) weapons of mass destruction; (2) to free the Iraqi people for democracy and freedom.

If these were, as they should be, the fixed analytical points for interventionist military action – leaving entirely aside the issues of international law and moral justification – the Bush administration should have sat down at the table and scratched their heads while considering the number of candidates for military action, as directed purely by those three policy objectives: Iran, with its terrorist training ground, radical Islamic government, bankrolling of Hamas; Bush’s good buddies in Saudi Arabia, who donated most of the suicide pilots and terrorist passengers for 9/11's triple whammy; Egypt, with its seething prophets of anticapitalism and death-to-Americans; North Korea, with its psychotic megalomaniac, missile-launching, nuclear-weapons-detonating, nuclear-bombs-for-sale leader with a name like an animated Japanese cartoon; Pakistan, riddled with dissident, crackling with internal explosions like a firecracker, with charismatic regional terrorists pouring at will into Afghanistan, sheltering Osama bin Laden, brimming with nuclear missiles, and Sudan, staunchly antiAmerican, allegedly a brewer of chemical weapons of death, actively genocidal against its own people (this being one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein was a bad man) but compared to Iraq (pronounced ear-RAK, not EYE-rak). depleted of useful oil unless your name is China

Then if one discounts the ties to al Qaeda because in Iraq, with a secular monomanical dictator with no love for religious zealots, there never were such ties, the real questions for applying the policy were for the decider: (1) who has the oil? (2) who might not give us the oil? (3) who have we invaded before and the other towelheads supported it? (4) who tried to kill my daddy? and (5) where in the love of Jesus can I go to war?

Because God knows that only war presidents have gone down in history as great presidents. But please. Invading Iraq, however you pronounce it, was not the decision driven by policy. Ergo, national policy becomes a propaganda smokescreen behind which all kinds of hidden agendas are lost in the resulting fog of war. Read More 
Be the first to comment