Mel Gurtov's Superpower on Crusade
According to Mel Gurtov, most would say that foreign policy has an erratic temperament. In his insightful book, "Superpower on Crusade: The Bush Doctrine in U.S. Foreign Policy", Gurtov shows that Bush's foreign policy follows his predecessors' policies of regime change, unilateralism, and an expanded military. The big things he believes to be Bush's gift to future presidents are two new highly controversial concepts. These key concepts are preemption and unprecedented secrecy. These two changes are something that Gurtov views as unwise and misleading to the population. Thomas Donnelly, in his book "The Underpinnings of The Bush Doctrine," gives the reader three underlying principles of the Bush…show more content… His second allegation is that the Bush doctrine supports the expansion of autonomous and democratic states. This is based on the idea that a free Islamic world would be devastated if Iran or Iraq were ever to become nuclear capable. In addition, if North Korea were ever to acquire nuclear weapons, democracy and security in East Asia would become history.
His final claim states that the US is the only country with enough military, economic, and diplomatic power to "fix" the world. In the text, he gives examples of how America has unprecedented power. For instance, all of the world's navies combined together would still be inferior to that of the American Navy. Moreover, the US generates 30% of the total world economic output. These two factors, among many others, give America the responsibility to watch over and "fix" the world.
Fortunately for us, a great man has risen against what the mainstream media has given us. A man who can cast light on the darkness handed to us by the Bush administration. A man well, you get the picture. That man's name is Mel Gurtov.
As I have stated earlier, he gives two new and highly controversial differences between his predecessors and himself: preemption and secrecy. While these two are quite obvious to anybody who watches the news, Gurtov gives us more information about the illegitimacy of the matter compared to, say, Donnelly.