The Sandwich Doctrine

Let's be frank. The way the case was made for undertaking the War in Iraq was rather weak. But, like a brilliant philosopher with a stutter, just because the way the arguments were put forward was incoherent and incomplete doesn't mean the reasoning wasn't sound. The media, the pundits, and the actors themselves all settled early on for stressing the mysterious, dangerous intrigue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, while all of the other very important reasons were lost in the sound and fury spent on the WMD argument. The results of this were threefold. First, the true threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, in his regime's funding, resources, and know-how, was overshadowed by the concerns only over his existing stockpiles and intent to use them. Second, the large strategic interest with respect to the Global War on Terror became a secondary concern. Finally, any further mention of these or any other reasons were attacked as being an attempt to change the argument, rather than a full documentation of it.

Wars are complex issues, and often the reasons for them that seep into societal consciousness aren't the most important ones. The Greek states certainly didn't fight the Trojans for a decade because of one king's unfaithful, but really hot, wife. It was likely, among other reasons, a trade war for control over the Straits of Bosporus (where modern-day Istanbul is) and the Eastern Mediterranean, and thereby access to Asian markets. But economic geekery doesn't put food in a storyteller's stomach, and Homer knew that. If we want to truly understand something with as many causes as war, we can't get lost in one scary or otherwise compelling reason. We have to take that reason to be an ingredient in a larger plan, like a slice of cheese on a sandwich.

So, you want to make a sandwich. I'm not talking about just your average, run-of-the-mill bologna or PB&J affair; I'm talking about an epic, put-Dagwood-to-shame sandwich. First, you have to know what you're going to put in it; you have to have a plan. In a war, that plan is usually covered in a nation's grand strategy, which is a long-term approach to strategy, on a decades- or centuries-long level. Currently, our grand strategy is also known as the Bush Doctrine, and is best explained in a document called the National Security Strategy. Essentially, the Bush Doctrine states that our greatest threat is international terrorism, particularly terrorism aided by state sponsors. To defend the strategic interests of the United States, these sponsors must be dealt with, and we must also remove the conditions which breed terrorists, namely oppressive regimes who use their propaganda to essentially blame the "Great Satan" America for all their nation's troubles.

Next, to make a sandwich, you need ingredients. Sometimes, you already have some of them. For example, the hostilities between the US and Iraq never really ceased after the '91 Gulf War - instead there was a cease fire agreement, which Saddam and his friendly missile-site operators continually violated. But if you truly want to make a sandwich for the ages, you'll need a trip to the store. Of course, you need to go to the grocery store which will have the highest quality as well as the best selection; ingredients that will best fit your master sandwich plan. Even then, sometimes the store won't have everything, even when they say they do. The bad news here comes when it's an ingredient that everyone was excited about, like the finest of Swiss cheeses. This is essentially what happened with the WMD argument. The good news, however, is that you can still have a really good sandwich, one that still can fit your sandwich master plan. The key is not to forget the good news, and to build the sandwich from the many, many other ingredients left in the store. For example, the meat was still there, in that a state sponsor of terror was removed from power, and his fellow members of the "Axis of Evil" could see precisely what was coming to sponsors of terror who had modern armies (something that wasn't necessarily proven against the Taliban). We can say the cheese was still there, also. After all, now we have the opportunity to introduce and prove the worth of a democratic "virus" in a population of both Sunni and Shia, as well as Arab and Kurd and Persian, as an example for all who may see. It is precisely this goal - introducing popular government, thereby removing the curtain behind which someone can blame the outside world for his own domestic failures - that makes the Bush Doctrine a grand strategy. Not only are enemies in the here and now considered, but the soil from which future enemies may grow is also treated with a healthy dose of pesticide.

Finally, every epic sandwich has a few secret ingredients; those little extra touches that you don't necessarily advertise, but that make the end result that much better. In Iraq, some of the "secret" ingredients included a stronger diplomatic position with Saudi Arabia, by adding new oil competition to the world market and by removing the US bases there, and a central position against to neighboring overt state sponsors of terror. These are reasons that are certainly strong, but they are also reasons one can't exactly blame those folks who made this sandwich for not mentioning.

Of course, the key to a sandwich is the sandwich itself, no matter which cheese is missing, or which secret ingredient is added. In Iraq, the United States and its allies have spent the past two and a half years building just such a sandwich. We've removed one state sponsor of terrorism, increased our relative strength against other such state sponsors, and created new conditions that serve to stem the long-term production of terrorists as a result of an oppressive, autocratic society. Whether the Swiss cheese was there or not, it remains an epic sandwich and ought to be a pride for all who have made it.