Bush Embraces ‘Beehive Theory’

Bush BeeSorry, this has nothing to do with President Bush’s upcoming visit to Utah, later this month. Instead, it’s a remarkable glimpse of a mind that is fixated on what I would call the opposite of reality. Back in April 2003, Josh Marshall warned that the neocon strategy for the entire Middle East could best be described as “whacking the hornet’s nest” (BTW this was a prescient article, well worth reading today). “Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario,” wrote Marshall. “It’s their plan.”

During an interview with NBC’s Richard Engel in Egypt, President Bush expounded on this theme– except he called it “a beehive theory.” And yes, our commander-in-chief thinks that the USA ought to give the Middle East a good whacking.

ENGEL: If you look back over the last several years, the middle east that you’ll be handing over to the next president is deeply problematic. You have Hamas in power, Hezbollah empowered, taking to the streets, Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What region are you handing over?

BUSH: Richard, those folks were always around. They were here. What we’re handing over is a Middle East that one recognizes the problems and the world recognizes them. There’s clarity as to what the problems are.

ENGEL: The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals, that there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States.

BUSH: It’s just a beehive theory. We should have just let the beehive sit there and hope the bees don’t come out of the hive? My attitude is, the United States must stay on the offense against al Qaeda two ways —

ENGEL: Smash the beehive and let them spread?

BUSH: Richard, two ways. One, find them and bring them to justice — what we’re doing — and two, offer freedom as an alternative for their vision. And somehow, to suggest that bees would stay in the hive is naive. They didn’t stay in the hive when they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

Of course, the Bush administration’s global war on terror has been a costly flop. During World War II, America defeated both the Nazis and the Japanese in less than four years. After nearly eight years, Al Qaeda is not defeated, and intelligence reports say they are doing better than ever.

Video after the jump…

On a personal note, while living in Yemen I had a close encounter with a hornet’s nest. I wanted to leave it alone, in the hope the hornets would leave us alone, but it was in back of the house near the clothes line. My wife said it had to go, just as a precaution. I only got stung once, but it was the nastiest sting of my whole life.

  1. #1 by Obi wan liberali on May 19, 2008 - 2:09 pm

    Beware of the Hornet’s Nest.

    Just saying.

  2. #2 by Larry Bergan on May 19, 2008 - 4:17 pm

    Bees everywhere must be brought to justice and as long as somebody besides the chicken hawks are smashing beehives “over there”, this madness is going to continue.

  3. #3 by cav on May 19, 2008 - 5:15 pm

    …to GW and friends, “Buzz-off, Chump”..er..chimp.

  4. #4 by Tom on September 4, 2008 - 9:48 am

    How do you not understand that guerrilla warfare and industrial warfare are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum? One falls into the category of unconventional warfare while the other is obviously very conventional. Of course we won WWII in a short period of time–it’s largely a matter of industrial production. Furthermore, on the battlefield it’s pretty simple–you see the guy in the enemy’s uniform, you kill him. One must also consider however the wars in Western Europe and Japan were not complete until the rebuilding strategy worked successfully to consolidate the military victory.

    Conversely counter guerrilla/insurgent/terrorist conflicts take much longer on average. How is that lost on you? There is so much academic, objective info out there on revolutionary warfare…here’s a crazy concept…try reading some of it! Understanding and defeating guerrilla movements does not require one to be a liberal any more than one must be conservative. Too far to the left or right and one simply discounts whatever does not fit into one’s worldview.

    Additionally, if we were to apply your beehive theory to WWII, we would have left our enemies alone, believing live and let live works against extremist ideologies. History has repeatedly demonstrated this is not the case. If you are such a great military commander and could have won the war on terror so quickly, why not tell us how guerrilla movements have historically been defeated rather than just complaining about what has transpired?

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2008 - 10:03 am

    So, Tom– You believe that launching an unprovoked war of aggression in Iraq was helpful to U.S. national security? Do you support the indefinite occupation of Iraq?

    Don’t you think that invading other countries and killing innocent people results in more worldwide hatred of the USA and causes our allies to withdraw their support?

  6. #6 by Tom on September 4, 2008 - 10:23 am

    Not sure what that had to do with what I said but I’ll answer it. Liberalizing structural reforms are historically the best way to defeat guerrilla movements and prevent future conflict. I support such reforms in the heart of the middle east although obviously I understand why people are against it.

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2008 - 10:30 am

    Tom– You didn’t answer the questions I asked.

    You are also trying to apply traditional counterinsurgency theory to what is now Fourth Generation Warfare. It’s naive to suggest neo-colonial policies in the Middle East, they were tried already and failed.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: