Stay on the offensive to remove (not engage, remove) the state supporters who provide justification, cover, financing, and infrastructure for terrorism; make discouragement of terrorism impossible in their jurisdictions; kill moderates; and extend terrorists' capabilities and reach.

How widely would you define the alligators? The syllabus in Egyptian and Jordanian schools aren't exactly peaceful. Creating a generation sympathetic (at best) to jihad is arguably as serious as giving those people weapons and training later on.

• a moral dimension (free the Iraqi people from a madman) for the "war for civilians" types
• a UN justification (make the UN mean something, even if the UN wasn't so hot on follow-through) for the internationalists
• oil that could be made secure and also used to pay for it all for the self-interested types
• atomic weapons that would come on-line any day and chemical weapons already in mass production for the defend America types
• and was probably in some way responsible for 9-11 for the revenge types

And yet support for starting the Iraq war was never overwhelming among the populace. (Did it ever go above 60%?)

Now we're going to ask Americans to accept a vastly more costly war (at least if one intends to "reconnect" the targets to the rest of the world) with the main justification being that they'll eventually have nuclear weapons or other WMD (i.e. an unspecified future thread). After having most of the Iraq justifications shot down?

You'll need a heck of a lot more persuasive statesman than GWB.

Iran and North Korea are a lot more of a threat than Iraq ever was, but such a war will be very costly. I cannot see how it can how be sold to the American people or their representatives.

A very interesting take on the Bush Doctrine. Indeed, the November vote will have implications far beyond the next four years.

It is fair to note that establishing democracy in the Middle East is, and will be, more difficult than the Cubs winning a World Series. There are no mini-Americas there, nor will there be for any length of time. The ultimate question is not whether we, meaning in my case a conservative, have the stomach for it, but rather do the American people?

I'm looking for an angle to tie the Bush Doctrine to the (bigger) doctrine laid out in Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map". I feel Bush is following Barnett's doctrine, but that the latter is the actual doctrine we should be focusing on. Any comments?

Joe, Really excellent analysis!
But do you think "20-25" years is long enough for for the relative "evolutionary fitness" of democratic ideas and capitalism to overcome the swamp? Given, of course, that the alligator hunting goes well?

Great thought-provoking analysis, Joe. I do have a couple of questions or thoughts. First, what makes the event horizon 10-25 years? Second (and this is my largest problem with the democratization theory), what is the value of fractional implementation? I think we can largely agree that peaceful, liberal, economically viable democracy in the Middle East would be wonderful—what's been referred to as Vermont or, if you'd prefer, Sweden in the Middle East. Would Singapore in the Middle East be just as good? 1/2 as good? Worth 1/2 as much? How about instead of Vermont in the ME, China in the ME?

What if the best that's practically attainable is Saddam-lite?

What concerns me is the possibility that the only effective draining of the swamp is with "Sweden on the Tigris"—the unattainable. Steven Den Beste's response to these questions from me quite a while ago was in essence that it was worth a try.

What concerns me about that is the reality that however we might like to serialize the war on terror events in Iran don't stop while we're focusing on Iraq. Nor will events in Sudan. Or Chechnya. Or any of a dozen or a thousand other places.

Dave S. : I think the 20-25 years is based on biotechnolgy proliferation, and the probability of bioterroism that Tim Oren extrapolated.
And while it is true that we can't serialize the WoT, the inexorable process of evolutionary change is grinding on all fronts simultaneously, also.

Dave, some replies to your questions:

"what makes the event horizon 10-25 years?"

Tim Oren's timeline on the far end for the spread and commoditization of genetic engineering capabilities (though I've been considering 10-30 years). On the near end, the danger of terrorists recruiting some biowarfare experts, equipping them, and leapfrogging the commoditization curve; or a rogue state springing this on us.

As noted above, of course, a nuclear Iran pre-empts the bioweapon worries entirely, and probably leaves attempts to stop nuclear proliferation in a shambles. That sort of thing could begin the 3 Conjectures scenario at any time. So I really hope it doesn't come to that - but if there's a serious plan on either side of America's political aisle to deal with this, I haven't heard it.

"what is the value of fractional implementation?"

Outstanding question. Note my careful phrasing: "...an environment that will be more conducive to the spread of liberty, tolerance, and greater global coexistence - and much more hostile to militant Islamists."

So fractional implementation may have significant value, IF these fractions pave the way for ongoing improvement toward real liberty and coexistence, AND raise local hostility to Islamism.

Given the ME's history, "China in the Middle East" regimes probably have too many dangers of backsliding into the same old, same old. Singapore in the Middle East is unlikely outside of Dubai/UAE - but Malaysia in the Middle East could be real progress if the right elements around tolerance and coexistence were added.

"What if the best that's practically attainable is Saddam-lite?"

If that's the best, we're headed for The Islamic War and there's nothing we can do to stop it. Not a nice future, and against what The Bush Doctrine believes. Think of Egypt and the Saudis, and the serious problems their systems cause. That isn't an option any more.

A Musharraf-style regime might be acceptable, but it has to leave at an appropriate point.

Thanks for the questions!

"fractional implementation"

I think the concept we're looking for here is 'friction' in the Clausewitzian sense. Even partial implementation has value in creating friction for the Islamists, hindering and delaying the opponent's movement. E.g., Islamists who have to overcome the interests of a growing domestic middle class to create a secure operating base will have less time and energy to expand on other evil deeds.

Yes, 'fractional implementation alone' may be delaying the inevitable. But perhaps that delay will give time for alternative approaches to work. And if worst comes to worst, we tried.

"Saddam-lite"

Let me once again toss out a notion I believe I've aired here before. An alternative to changing the regime is changing the territory. It may or may not be the best option to keep current ME nations intact. For example, If one believes that having a ME 'Switzerland' as an object model is useful, Kurdistan recommends itself. With an American defensive shield, it's viable, regardless of the heartburn for the Turks. A systematic doctrine of dismantling terror-harboring countries along ethnic lines, often separating natural resources from trouble makers, could be both a credible threat and a real way of 'diversifying' the mix in the ME. I'm not suggesting this as preferred policy, but as a credible Plan B to what we seem to be doing now. And in this one, Iraq is the bellwether.

And, V-man, I totally agree that I'd like to see Bush and Co. adopting or coopting more of 'New Map'. For one thing, it provides a more consistent and therefore credible 'carrot' to go with the military stick. We shouldn't have to invade a ME country to begin building the type of connectivity that Barnett describes. But it's an entirely different kind of aid than passing out dollars and weapons to corrupt generals and presidents-for-life. We'll have to tell the story of how it's different, and then make it stick, and 'Map' helps a lot there.

Does anybody believe that it is possible to kill, capture or imprison all of the people that oppose us?
This "kill them all and drain the swamp" attitude is not only ridiculous but it is clearly wrong (and I don't even have to sink into moral relativism to denounce this... everyone denounces genocide)
Those comments that deal with education are right on the money (but don't take my word for it, look at history.) Education, prosperity and human rights are far more effective at creating lasting liberty, democracy and freedom than any military or genocidal action.

Tim Oren's timeline on the far end for the spread and commoditization of genetic engineering capabilities (though I've been considering 10-30 years). On the near end, the danger of terrorists recruiting some biowarfare experts, equipping them, and leapfrogging the commoditization curve; or a rogue state springing this on us.

Do you need commoditization? Isn't what we've learned from the apparently common support by German, French, and Russian (and possibly American for all I know) companies of Saddam in pretty much whatever he wanted that all that is needed is portability and lots of cash? And don't isn't that the situation right now?

Yes, 'fractional implementation alone' may be delaying the inevitable. But perhaps that delay will give time for alternative approaches to work. And if worst comes to worst, we tried.

I'm not worried about delaying the inevitable. I'm worried about making the inevitable an order of magnitude (or two or three) worse in casualties on our side because the other side has an opportunity to arm themselves with nastier weapons.

A systematic doctrine of dismantling terror-harboring countries along ethnic lines, often separating natural resources from trouble makers

Part of the problem with this is is the IMO largely fanciful Arab maghreb. There may be no ethnic lines along which to divide. How many ethnicities are there in the KSA? I believe there are actually at least three countries there.

Dave - you may very well not need commmoditization for the biowar horror scenario. That's why I called my exercise 'horizoning' - as in, the far horizon. That timeline is the probable best situation you get. Joe correctly added some SWAG time and took it as his further time point.

If I wanted to get a middle-of-the-road estimate for the time to your alternate scenario, I might do something like find our when PCR became cheap enough to be a routine tool for biotech startups or modestly funded university labs, and see how many years that followed the invention. I'm sure someone more expert in biotech could come up with some other comparable learning curves, for sanity checking.

Larry Mills-Gahl:

This "kill them all and drain the swamp" attitude is not only ridiculous but it is clearly wrong (and I don't even have to sink into moral relativism to denounce this... everyone denounces genocide)

I dread to think what your take is on our conduct in WW2.

Larry M-G said, "Does anybody believe that it is possible to kill, capture or imprison all of the people that oppose us? This "kill them all and drain the swamp " attitude is... clearly wrong... everyone denounces genocide"

The intent of war is not to kill everyone, but just enough of them to end defiance. The terrorists can end this war any time they wish-- by just stop trying to kill us.

"Those comments that deal with education are right on the money... Education, prosperity and human rights are far more effective at creating lasting liberty, democracy and freedom than any military or genocidal action."

You need to leave you leftist leanings behind, Larry; people are not as malleable as you think. Education is worthless to those who will not learn-- or who will learn our technology to better kill us. The problem with the ME is that the people and their governments resist adopting our ways; by doing so, they consign themselves to poverty, ignorance and tyranny.

The war in Iraq has forced the ME governments to move toward freedom. This process is done quite reluctantly; Libya gave up its WMD out of fear that they would be next. The Arab culture has resisted modernization for five hundred years; it will not change so easily. Nor without force.

"The war in Iraq has forced the ME governments to move toward freedom. This process is done quite reluctantly; Libya gave up its WMD out of fear that they would be next."

I don't think this is actually true. Setting aside the question of why Libya gave up its primitive nuclear program and mustard gas, is there any evidence that Libya has "moved toward freedom?"

Last I checked, Qaddafi was firmly entrenched and had done nothing to liberalize the country either economically or politically. And he recently threatened the EU with terrorism if I am not mistaken. All he has done is moved from the shunned pariah column to the tolerated pariah column, as far as I can tell.

But let's talk about Egypt for a second, the largest country in the Arab world, ethnically more homogenous than Iraq and with a far longer history of statehood, and an ostensibly pro-US government officially at peace with Israel. In the 90s, the regime successfully stamped out Islamic militants who had marginalized themselves with the Luxor attacks.

The United States has been in Egypt for 28 years and spent over $25 billion in foreign aid. And yet, Egypt is not deemed ready for a FTA with the United States, according to Robert Zoellick. And according to the latest polling numbers, 98% of Egyptians are unhappy with US policies.

Why do we think Iraq had a better shot?

Larry Mills-Gahl:

Are you the same guy who is spamming the comment threads on BlogsForBush.com? You know, elemgee, Don, Dave, hrk, and all those other aliases you use after you keep getting banned? You really ought to get a life. Still play the trombone up there in NJ?

hi, I have to do a university paper for the 2nd December about:

"the role of the US administration in the coup against President Chavez in Venezuela on April 11 2002 - How the Monroe Doctrine lives on in the Bush Doctrine"

Can anyone help me?? I'd be so gratefull!

Please email me, don't post any answers here: isabellefavre@e-clipx.ch

Thanks!