Proof that the "Bush*Doctrine" is a failure?

based upon the quote in this interview with Chalmers Johnson, from his book, The Sorrows of Empire, isn't this proof that what the six generals, a couple of ambassadors, and various intel people testified to before the Iraq invasion...i.e. that an invasion of Iraq and the subsequent "perpetual war" that is the Bush Doctrine would create, not stop terrorism..proof that, yet again, they were right and Bush (and every Congressperson who supports this idea) is wrong?

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/03/int04013.html


"Secretary Rumsfeld, in his long, hard slog memo of October, said that we lack a method, he calls it -- a measure of our progress in the war on terrorism. I think he's just wrong. Between 1993 and 2001, including the attacks of Sept. 11, Al Qaeda managed to execute about five major bombing incidents worldwide over a period of eight years. In the two years since then, down to and including the suicide attack on Istanbul on the British Consulate and the HSBC Bank, they've carried out 17.

We know with precision from numerous historical examples that the use of a high-tech armed force like ours in trying to combat terrorism is the wrong strategy. In fact, military over-reaction is one of the things the terrorists anticipate in resorting to terrorism, in the belief that that then will generate more activists and increase the movement, which so far you'd have to say Al Qaeda has succeeded beyond its wildest imagination."

Chalmers Johnson

Is a "war on terror" sound policy when successful terror attacks have INCREASED under Bush's watch?

Not to mention the amount of money Bush is spending on the sort of military hardware and other things which have to do with conventional warfare, not terrorism?

...and here we are, yet again, with an incompetent policy toward guerilla warfare/terrorism led by people who brand anyone who disagrees with them as soft on terror?

It burns me to no end that we cannot have an honest discussion of this issue...never on any talking head show, never in congress, when political opportunists play to fear rather than look at events and tactics and wonder if, perhaps, they need to "refine" or more to the point, "redefine" what the risk is, and how to face it?

what r u some kinda terrurust or somet'n ;->

peace

if those statistics are valid...obviously you also need to look at the number of attacks which have been averted, the number attempted previously, and the history of bin Laden/Saudi-affliated and sponsored terrorism to determine what the numbers mean.

...and of course that is a rebuttal...people can and will selectively choose data.

that's why I wonder if this can be somehow examined and verfied.

All the people in this country who think Bush is making them safer might be interested in knowing that his policies are having the reverse effect.

'perception is everything' and is why so much is invested into manufacturing it.

and so it goes...


peace

Is that Bush doesn't even follow it. It is my understanding that the Bush Doctrine was that we would go after states that support terrorist organizations. If that was really the case then, after Afghanastan, we would have gone after Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who have well documented ties to terrorist organizations.