The Terror of the War on Terror

I see several problems with the Bush Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine II. To begin, I would like to make the note that forty seven percent of the entire world's military expenditures are spent by the United States. That means our one country is using half of the entire world's money just to defend ourselves. What is even more ironic, but obvious hearing the previous fact, is that United States was the world's greatest military power before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and we remain the same after the terrorist attacks. Also, our country features the most advanced weapons in the world, including weapons of mass destruction. So, does this give someone the right to come invade our country because we have WMD? No, which is why I think we didn't have that right when we chose to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I want to mention that the Bush Doctrine is rooted on the belief that the United States is the representation of national success that most nations wish to follow. This policy also claims that the U.S. has a right to unilaterally engage in "preventive wars" and to "change regimes" that it considers to be dangerous. I believe that the United States cannot represent the perfect model of national success when it spends just about fifty percent of the world's military expenditures, consumes about one quarter of the world's resources, and is responsible for one quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions. I really don't think that this is something to be proud of. I also don't think that most nations wish to imitate us. Instead, I think that most countries feel threatened by us because we are so defensive and prideful, are ashamed of us because we seem to be so ignorant and spoiled, or are angry with us because we do use so much of the world's resources and income. The Bush Doctrine also calls for the United States to develop an even stronger offensive and defensive military power, to the point where our military is "unchallengeable" in any location, time, or situation. Well, my question to this is, "If we are already spending 47% of the world's military expenditures, where are we going to get the money to make our selves even stronger?" Also, "If we are already the world's greatest military power, then why go to this much trouble and kill this many innocent people just to put the sprinkles on top?" It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I would like to comment on a couple quotes of George W. Bush.  One the day of and in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush said "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

He later said that this meant that all the world nations had a "decision to make."

He said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

In my opinion, this last statement is much too broad of an opinion to make. I do not think it is fair to label everyone else in the world that is not on America's side as a terrorist. This is the kind of thinking that causes wars. Why? Because making broad assumptions is the cause of racism, sexism, stereotypes, prejudice, etc. There are much more than two black and white beliefs in this world. Given that this is an obvious fact, why in the world does anyone think they have a right to say, "If you aren't with me, then you are evil!"?

Well, that is easy to answer: none of us do have that right!

The goal of the Bush Doctrine II is to build a fortress society which defends itself by creating barricades in order to block outside threats from piercing its borders while at the same time, enlarging pathways across its borders for wanted business and commerce. I think that this is evidence of the United States being just a little too power hungry. I understand that the point of this goal is to protect us from having another incident like the 9/11 terrorist attacks. However, I think that building a fortress society would just be a little much. I feel as though there are other things that need to be focused on before this since we still maintain the greatest military power in the world as it is. For example, we have extreme poverty and health care issues that need to be paid more attention to. Considering the fact that by November of 2006, we had already spent $507 billion, it should be apparent to most people that it is time to spend a little time and money on other issues as well.

Another main point of the Bush Doctrine II is the principle that the liberties and freedoms that are normally enjoyed by Americans are now a weakness in the fight against terrorism. Therefore, I perceive their conclusion is that the problem is partially our fault (as citizens) for allowing ourselves to be exposed to such danger. What I find ironic about this belief of the Bush Doctrine II is that America seems to stand for freedom around the world. We are such a young country, so it is hard at times to make as big of an impression as some of the older, more historical countries can have. This is why I think our government and our leaders strive so hard for power because they want to feel as though the United States is even more significant than all of those older countries. We want to be the greatest, and we want everyone to believe that we are. Therefore, our motto seems to be "The Land of Freedom." On the other hand, we are now being told that this same freedom that we are supposed to be proud of is now being labeled as our weakness. Why can't we ever just be given a straight answer? It seems like all over this country, people just beat around the bush to avoid the truth. I believe that if we would have been told the truth in the first place, I along with many more people would not have as much animosity towards our country's current state and authority.