The Bush Doctrine works – when it is applied properly. It follows in the same path laid out by past US hegemonic aspirations at new world orders. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy [all Democrats]; and Reagan had their own doctrines. Past calls to reform the world or combat evil in various forms always involved moral clarity; military power; financial resources; and ultimately patience and intelligence. The Bush Doctrine, aimed at fascistic Islam, and 'draining the swamps' of the Middle East is no different.

The Bush Doctrine is of course much maligned. Criticism of the doctrine comes from all over the ideological map and most of the criticism is invalid. The media and educational establishments of course rejoice and report every dissenting view – but offer nothing in the place of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine is the right way forward – but only if military might is used properly, which for 3.5 years in Iraq [as many of us knuckle dragging 'neo-cons' screamed], it was not.

What is the Bush Doctrine and why doesn't the media report what the doctrine is, in its entirety?

The Bush Doctrine is based on a realistic assessment of the challenge posed by radical Islam. It can best be summarised by a speech Bush gave on September 20th 2001: 'We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the twentieth century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value execpt the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends – in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.'

This is brilliant. In one paragraph Bush summarizes what is at hand with the radical elements of Islam. First, Islam is an ideology of 'will to power' [male Muslims must rule, Islam must dominate etc]; and is inherently fascist [no free will]. Second, Islam follows Nazism and Communism in its commitment to eradicate civilisation, justice, morality and the juridical personality. Third, Islam for all its murderous pagan energy, is doomed to failure – as long as we can recognise the ideology for what it is.

This one paragraph is the best short summation of what is at stake.

Now flowing from this rationale comes the Bush Doctrine. The doctrine itself rejects all previously inept and failed attempts to address, appease, rationalise or reason with Islam. For over 50 years, various US policies have tried and failed, to either modernise Islam, contain it, or seek an accomodation with it.

Various 'isms' – realism, liberalism, and internationalism primary among them – were tried and they failed. The Bush Doctrine broke with all past frameworks and adopted a new, and singularly logical plan to deal with Islam – use exogenous force to change radical, terror sponsoring Muslim regimes, their society, and ultimately their culture.

By definition the Bush Doctrine is ineluctably a military-based option. Military power, combined with economics, new pluralist democratic structures, and at some level, a new culture, must or at least has the potential to, refashion the states of the Middle East. It does not require a military occupation of every state, but only the key states which will form the basis for regional-wide change.

The Bush Doctrine is bold and risky – but ultimately right. As Bush said numerous times between 2001 and 2004 – usually on deaf media ears – you cannot wait until threats are imminent. By this he meant that terrorists and fascists usually don't write love letters to their victims identifying the time and place of the next tragic, murderous rampage. They usually just kill and talk later. In a compressed world of lethal weapons of all sizes and shapes, and with inter-continental logistics capability available to even the poorest of states, waiting around until murder strikes is simply an abdication of responsibility and ensures carnage.

The Bush Doctrine then is premised on pre-emptive strikes, an assertion of national privilege and security, and the belief that forcing democratic change onto the fascist regimes in the Islamic world, is the best hope for long term international peace. He is right. Every other policy tried by conservatives and liberals alike in the past 50 years, regarding Islam, has failed.

Realism and balance of power politics [play Iraq off against Iran for example], failed. There are many who whine that the US created Hussein or the Taliban for instance, in the American zeal to counter Russian Communism. Liberal internationalism in the guise of the UN, or endless diplomatic talking shops, have been useless endeavours, never once stopping Islamic terror and violence [see Israel as an example]. Appeasement and isolationism, as witnessed by Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon in 1983 after hundreds of US marines were killed by Hizbollah over a 6 month period involving multiple attacks; or Clinton's cowardly conduct in Somalia and East Africa, only emboldened the enemy.

So what else is left? Not much. You can't pull up the drawbridge and hide behind porous national borders. Neither can you outsource your foreign policy [as the US State department does] to the Europeans or the UN. Neither is trustworthy. With only a few countries possessing any military with power projection capability[France, Israel and the UK are the others]; the US is forced into unilateral action.

Invading and draining the swamp of Iraq is the right policy. If the US had used proper military force and fought the Iraq war to win, Iraq today would be stable. At least after 3 years they finally got the right ideas and the right generals to do what should have been done from day one. WMD has been found [along with sales of Hussein's stock identified, going to the Russians, various Arab states and Syria]. Iraqi terror financing has been halted. Iraq now has a government that is our ally. And radical Islam has most likely lost 60.000 men killed and scores more wounded. Iraq is a colossal defeat for the Islamists.

Along with the occupation of Afghanistan some notable things have happened. Iran is now encircled making an invasion certainly easier and quicker. The 'winds of change' are slowing blowing throughout the Middle East. The Arabs and Muslims now comprehend that the US is in the region to stay – and to reform. This significant fact means that further societal, cultural and economic changes will surely follow. The fight against Islam has been taken to the heartland of the Arab cult. The pschological effects on Islamic populations, of winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and challenging Iran directly, will be enormous.

Liberal internationalism, and the cult of politically correct Marxism, is a scam. There is nothing intelligent in ignoring reality and pretending that the world is a multi-cult paradise and that Islam means peace. Preposterous. It is also morally hypocritical.

US 'allies', excluding Britain, but including the weak militaries of most of the EU, and Canada did not join the US invasion of Iraq with any degree of force or military power, for the following reasons: 1. They possess no military. 2. The EU, Russia and China had business interests, including oil rights, worth billions per annum that could not be disturbed. 3. Iraq was the UNO’s largest ever revenue program and the UNO stole about $21 billion in monies from this program over 10 years; and 4. Domestic politics in the socialist and relativist nations [each with sizeable Arab and Muslim lobby groups], means anti-Americanism pays off at the polls and in election campaigns. The opposition to the Iraq invasion was not based on moral grounds.

Islamic terror necessitates a multi-level, and complicated response – but it is still, as in times past, primarily a military and financial response which will ensure victory. Diplomacy without strength is useless. Since 9-11, 60.000 people have been killed in acts of Muslim violence and 90.000 wounded. This excludes Darfur and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine of 2001-2002 was right. Islam is the natural heir to the fascist-totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Communism.

In the Middle East and elsewhere Islam has proven itself a failure and if not reformed, Islamic doctrine will only produce more fascist tyranny, hopeless economies and hate sated youth dying for martyrdom. Smashing directly or indirectly Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia which spend each, $500 million; $ 1-2 billion; and $3-4 billion respectively per annum in sponsoring terror and fascist Islam around the world, should be the number one foreign policy mandate of the West, after stabilising Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is nothing wrong with a crusading, imperialist policy. Especially if our national security is at risk. After all the Arabs under the banner of Islam, have been waging war against 'the others' for 1400 years. Acting like children will not make the nightmare go away. The Bush Doctrine is the mature and responsible heir to policies espoused by Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Reagan. There is no other option.