Bush Doctrine: Threat And Preventive War

The United States has recognized that local threats have worldwide consequences. Recognizing our global interconnectedness was essential for any foreign policy, especially in a world where traditional borders are quickly breaking down. The Doctrine highlighted that foreign intervention does not need to rely solely on military action. Today, political and economic sanctions are a key part of American foreign policy (Bolinder 2013). The Doctrine also calls for the U.S to lead the international community in spreading peace, prosperity and democracy around the world. It has become the foundation for United States foreign policy and a guidebook for international relations in a nuclear and digital age.

Jingoism intwined with governmental policy and “a majority…of Americans…grant[ing] spontaneous consent to foreign policy militancy” influences policies related to foreign and national security in the United States.1 European history of colonialism and imperialism impacted the development of foreign policy and national security. In Culture, National Identity, and the “Myth of America,” Walter L. Hixson leniently critiques American foreign policy, while advocating towards a more “cooperative internationalism.”2 Melvyn P. Leffler in National Security, Core Values, and Power fails to formulate an engaging argument for national security policies reflection of America core values. In reference to foreign and national security policy, both Hixson and Leffler refer to the impact of hegemony, with Leffler’s mention succinct and without specific detail. In the United States, foreign policy leans towards jingoism, while national security policy develops from general core values.

There is not one American identity. There is not a single consistent plan for what American policy is, should, or will be. Sure, this political scientist might present a plan for a specific crisis, but there is always a politician in the wings with another plan to counter the first. Every politician’s opinion is different, just as every citizen’s is. Our experiences shape our identities, as does the information we are fed in school, by our families and friends, as well as the media. The view I have of the United States and its place in the world is quite different than most because I am a first generation American. Moreover, my family comes from Venezuela, where their international policy is starkly different than America’s. The United States of America’s international role has unquestionably shaped my opinions, outlook, and behavior.

From its humble beginnings, the United States of America has expressed its intention to assist individuals who desired freedom by serving as an exemplar of liberty. Originally, Americans sought to preserve their republic by avoiding all foreign altercations and external constraints. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, in his first inaugural address Thomas Jefferson warned his audience of the potential dangers of foreign affairs by stating, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none,” pleading for a delicate balance between national security and commerce. This sentiment on foreign policy was reiterated on July 4, 1821, by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams when he said, “America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.” At the dawn of the 21st century, the implications from Adam’s statement are no longer consistent with the demands of American national security. The key tenets of the Bush doctrine, democratization and preemption, have deviated from Adam’s vision and redefined United States foreign policy for the 21st century.

The foreign policy of the United States can be defined as a labyrinth- a set of complex intricacies which either lack comprehension or are characterized by meticulous thought. Established during a period of ideological warfare and domestic hysteria, it is evident the Truman Doctrine was conceived with a disregard for the future stability of American international affairs. Engulfed within a period marked by massive power struggles and distorted accusations, the Truman Doctrine may appear minimal in regard to alterations of the United States international attitude. However, the Doctrine acted as a catalyst for the shift in America’s foreign policy objectives and vision. It is clear the Truman Doctrine produced detrimental consequences in regard to the international policy of the United States, stability of foreign countries, and continuing repercussions in the modern day.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

The grand strategy of President of Bush foreign policy was to promote the spread of American democratic principles throughout the rest of the world and liberate those who are oppressed under non democratic regimes. In order to accomplish these foreign policy goals the Bush administration needed to exert a maximum display of force which was often achieved through military intervention. In the first term of President Bush administration one of the most daunting tasks faced with the implementation of the foreign policy strategy was how America could adequately address the growing

Was the war in Iraq a means to improve national security or a conspiracy to seek personal satisfaction? On March 19, 2003 a war was waged under public scrutiny, to destroy the Baathist regime headed by the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. This pivotal point in United States history marked the beginning of public concern about political corruption within our government as a means to convey personal satisfaction.

Watching the extraordinary rise of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and subsequent capture of the Republican Party nomination in 2016, both observers and the official chattering classes have pondered what this means for the future foreign policy of the United States. Trump’s strident opposition to free trade, disdain for NATO and the US-Japan alliance, and willingness to ban all Muslims from entering the US do represent a stark break from 64 years of Republican national security orthodoxy. With every Republican nominee from Dwight Eisenhower to Mitt Romney, the Republican Party gave strong support to the large international role the United States played on the world stage and the web of alliances and treaties that underscored it. While there have been Republican voices in the post-Cold War era who have challenged this internationalist foundation, none of them were able to seize the glittering tiara of the presidential nomination. The Trump victory in the primaries overturns decades of GOP positions on foreign policies. Yet is this the triumph of a single candidate or a fundamental shift in opinion within the party grassroots? And if this is a new direction, how much of this change can be attributed to the Iraq War and its disastrous consequences? While Donald Trump’s foreign policy statements may come off as spontaneous and incoherent at times, what about their longevity? Unless Donald Trump wins a sizable victory in November, it’s likely that it’s a short lived

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

Towards the end of the article Dodge concludes how the Bush administration adapted the ‘counterinsurgency doctrine’ , also known as a political or military action, taken against the activities of guerrillas. Dodge continues to analyse how there is are ‘major internal contradictions within the neo – liberal doctrine itself.’ Neo- liberalism within International Relations includes the co-operation between both the states and the actors such as Bush and Iraq in these circumstances. Neo-liberals also believe, that it will be hard to achieve cooperation but must be facilitated by the growth of international institutions and regimes. However, as Dodge states ‘US policy in Iraq faced this contradiction head-on’ , the contradiction between liberalism and how it is

Broadly defined, neo-conservativism advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and US national interests through military supremacy and interventionist foreign policy. It places the United States as the overseer of international peace. With this in mind, Mr. Kristol promotes three major concepts. First, American internationalism, also referred to as “exceptionalism,” is the belief that America’s mission goes beyond policing to provide a model for the rest of the world. Mr. Kristol advances his argument by pointing to Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Regan. Common to all was the belief that the security and survival of the United States

The Bush Doctrine was focused on achieving a number of different objectives for dealing with hostile nations. The most notable include: unilateralism, going after countries that harbor terrorists, preemptive strikes and creating democratic regime change. Unilateralism is when the US will set the direction and tone for the rest of the world. Those nations that support these ideas can work with the America to form a coalition that will deal with these threats. Going after nations that harbor terrorists was to prevent these groups from having any kind of safe havens. This makes is difficult for them to coordinate and conduct attacks. ("The Bush Doctrine," 2012)

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

This international relations study will define the important themes of Realism (Neorealism) and Neo-liberalism in the conflicts of American war and profit in the 21st century. The premise of realism defines the underlying fallibility of human beings to behave selfishly to serve the needs of the few through a national interest: “”Realism is based on a view of the individual as primarily fearful, selfish, and power seeking” (Mingst 79). In this context, the power of individual nation states, such as the United States, provides an example of the unilateral invasion of Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. After the attacks of September 11th, 2001, it has become evident that America has become the dominant superpower in the world, which defines the underlying principles of military/war powers that can now act without the approval of other nations states. More so, ability of the United States to manipulate and control large regions of the world (especially the Middle East) define a massive military industrial complex, which meets the requirements of realism as a method of exposing the self-interest of American military, political, and economic interest in the post-9/11 era. The decreasing power of the United Nations and the growing power of the United States defines the self-interest of American nationalism over that of a more cooperative and dynamic global system.