Just a year ago, calling the Iraq war an “unqualified triumph” would have been an unthinkable notion. The constant stream of negative news about insurgents gaining power, coalition forces losing ground, and death tolls in the hundreds, coupled with the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib, had forced even rabid neo-conservatives to reconsider their convictions: had the war been a mistake?

One year later, the answer is a resounding no. Events such as the Iraqi election, the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the brokering of peace between Israel and Palestine, and Egypt’s concessions to democracy have cultivated a new climate for discourse; it appears as if the Republicans in the White House have been vindicated at last. Charles Krauthammer, writer for The Weekly Standard and neo-conservative luminary, declares in Time Magazine, “Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine!” Even comedian Bill Maher, a vehement critic of this administration, admits that Mr. Bush may have been right after all. The Guardian, a British newspaper outspoken in its dislike of Mr. Bush, has conceded that the American approach may, in fact, be working.

Given the optimistic claims of a “new era,” an analysis of the scope of these changes and their expected impact is in order. Firstly, the Iraqi election is a monumental event. There is no doubt that Iraqi citizens expressed extraordinary courage when voting under the threat of torture, or worse, death, from insurgents. While the election is a good unto itself, it is not definitive evidence that Iraq will continue to function as a sustainable democracy. And even though the democratization is promising, little has changed on the battlefront. In fact, the past few weeks have been extremely violent with over 270 people dying from intensified insurgent attacks. Yet the media seems uninterested. A story that would have made headlines this time last year is relegated to a mere footnote. Have they so quickly forgotten that Vietnam too had elections?

Secondly, the death of Yasser Arafat and the ascension of the moderate Mr. Abbas has brought about a tenuous ceasefire, with renewed optimism in the possibility of a peaceful solution to the age-old conflict. While Mr. Bush can be commended for his tough stance on negotiation with Mr. Arafat, his Iraqi adventure had little to do with these recent developments. America is involved even less in the plans to pull back Israeli settlements and the eventual debate on Palestine’s borders. Similarly, the Syrian pullout has been prompted by indigenous forces in Lebanon and events beyond the control of America (e.g., the death of Mr. Hariri).

Yet, the neo-conservatives point to these developments as part of their “grand vision,” outlined in what is frequently referred to as “the Bush Doctrine.” First encountered in a speech President Bush made to the graduates of West Point in 2002, the Bush Doctrine is an often misunderstood policy. At its essence, it espouses the ideas that the United States can start pre-emptive wars in order to stem possible threats and that prodding other countries to embrace liberal governance is a national security priority.

In fact, the use of phrases such as “spreading democracy” and "ending tyranny" is unnerving to the Europeans, who have a fundamental distrust of America’s brash methods, and the leftists, who simply do not believe Mr. Bush has noble intentions. Indeed, Salon, a center-left magazine has called it “an explosive blend of the arrogance of our uniquely powerful post-Cold War military strength laced with a mind-numbing fear of box-cutter-wielding maniacs.”

In order to elucidate his vision to his detractors, Mr. Bush has recently been recommending a book to everyone he meets. The book is The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror by Nathan Sharansky, a right-wing Israeli politician. Mr. Sharansky chucks out the time-tested policy of “realpolitik,” arguing that cooperation with repressive regimes will lead to dire repercussions in the future. Mr. Sharansky also denounces the concept of a moral gray area, so beloved by the liberal societies of Europe; he uses terminology familiar to the neo-conservatives and declares that the world is indeed divided between good and evil.

Evil, of course, are the armed aggressors, be they Palestinian militants or Iraqi insurgents, who cannot justify their violence on any grounds. The United States is the overarching force for good in this world; it can use its power in a benign manner to force change in anarchic societies. This worldview has some pitfalls. For Mr. Sharansky, the legitimacy of people’s claims is a function of their tactics. Ye he does not realize that deplorable tactics within themselves do not entirely nullify a legitimate goal. Democracy is not an all-encompasisng panacea, nor can it be relied on to always produce acceptable results. Iran had elected leaders who turned to extremism. Hamas (a terrorist organization) has been extraordinarily successful in the Palestinian municipal elections, and, yes, Hitler was elected (somewhat) democratically as well. There is a tendency to blame the leaders and ignore the frustrations of a population. Change from the top down is rarely sustainable, which makes the long-term prospects of Mr. Bush’s foreign adventures suspect.

In Mr. Bush’s defense, many have claimed that the War on Terror is so radically different than anything attempted before, new methods (such as pre-emptive war) are necessary to ensure global security. The Europeans and the American left scoff at this notion. For them, it is conceptually simple: the threat came from Al-Qaeda, hence it must be punished and no-one else. Relegating global terrorism to a single group is rather short-sighted. The prospect of terrorists – even those not in Al-Qaeda – gaining weapons of mass destruction is a real threat. Americans are reasonably worried about this scenario; the Europeans are unusually complacent about it. The Europeans also point out that the American doctrine is structurally unsound. Preventive war carries with it moral considerations under any circumstance, but it is also predicated on the assumption of reliable information. Any such action requires foresight beyond means of any country or individual, intelligence reports of the highest integrity, and a mutual trust between all allies that would effectuate such an undertaking. While foresight is hard to measure, the other two qualifiers are not confounding: the Iraq fiasco has displayed the inadequacies of our intelligence bureaus and exposed the fractiousness of our once-allies.
Furthermore, there is the risk that the idea of pre-emption will be embraced by repressive regimes, whose intentions may not be as noble as Mr. Bush’s. Indeed, North Korea has justified its nuclear-weapons programme on the grounds of self-defense; they labeled America as an imminent threat, in case of a pre-emptive attack by their enemy across the Pacific.

This danger of distortion is what prompts many to label the “Bush Doctrine” as an inherently dangerous policy. Yet it’s not quite as radical as some may think. Surely, it trumps the policy we espoused in the Soviet era: mutually assured destruction. The Bush Doctrine is, with some legitimacy, linked inexorably to invasion, yet its most notable effects have been achieved without military conflict. In fact, there has been a renewed commitment to diplomacy, evidenced by Mr. Bush’s recent visits to Europe and Ms. Rice’s tour of NATO member nations. The simple fact that Mr. Bush has appointed a close confidant, Ms. Rice, to the most important diplomatic position in the country is evidence enough that he is interested in pursuing alternative avenues for implementing his ideas. Similarly, the appointment of Mr. Bolton, another individual who has the president’s ear, to the United Nations is not the colossal mistake it is being made out to be by the left. Mr. Bush, by nominating Mr. Bolton, has displayed an interest in reforming a dysfunctional organization. He wishes to engage the United Nations, not render it irrelevant. Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq war and close associate of the White House, has been sent to the World Bank, an important position with the power of implementing real change in the developing world.

In the past American rhetoric about “helping the world” has often been dismissed as just that, rhetoric. With these recent appointments, Mr. Bush has made a personal investment in his agenda. At its core, the Bush Doctrine – the idea that sustainable, peaceful democracy in other countries is essential to the security of America, and by extension, the world – is hard to disagree with. The Europeans have not been critical of the aims, they simply believe the methods, many of them questionable, used by the Americans may end up doing greater harm than good. Therefore, there is a need for diversification. For Mr. Bush’s aim to succeed, he needs to ensure that not just America, but the world as a whole is invested in his enterprise at varying levels. The European Union must not be seen as an obstructionist adversary, for it could prove to be a valuable ally in Mr. Bush’s march for “freedom everywhere.” The Ukrainian election late last year is evidence of the power of the EU. The possibility of EU membership can spur welcome changes in prospective countries.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once posed the question: how does one combat a “suicide supply chain?” With this new foreign policy, Mr. Bush claims to have the answer: give them democracy, give them jobs, and they will not be so eager to die. Such a notion displays great faith in the power of peoples; it lends credence to the idea that Arabs are both inclined towards and capable of democratic government – a notion implicitly dismissed in Brussels. Whatever may be the eventual outcome – for history will be the judge of this approach – it cannot be said that Mr. Bush’s approach is lacking in either scope or ambition. America has finally put its money where its mouth is. Let’s hope it ends well.