The Pros And Cons Of The Bush Doctrine

President Obama came into office in the aftermath of the disastrous foreign policy record of the Bush administration. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had served as a “switchman,” leading to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration exercised unilateral use of force and reluctance to engage the international community. As a result global elites and publics viewed the US unfavorably. The US economy was negatively affected by the costs of the wars coupled with the financial crisis of 2007. It was this environment that defined the contours of the election campaign of 2008. Obama campaigned on the idea of change, which represented a regeneration of America through domestic public policy reform and a return to multilateralism in foreign policy. Both domestic and international publics and elites were galvanized by Obama’s message.

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.

On September 11, 2001 the world changed. It was on this day in the United States that four planes were hijacked by 19 terrorists associated with the Islamic group al-Qaeda. These hijackers intentionally flew loaded passenger planes into the World Trade Center building in New York City, the Pentagon building, and crashed on plane into a field in Pennsylvania. In total almost 3,000 American citizens lost their lives in what was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil (Bergen). The resulting reactions from the US government to this attack would eventually involve two foreign wars and various pieces of legislation such as the Patriot Act. This became known as the “Global War on Terror.” A the time, President Bush’s approval rating soared from under 50% before the attacks, to over 90% after 9/11

There are several different reasons why terrorists attack; so broad, that many people debate about the official definition of terrorism. However, terrorists are defined in typologies to help sort some of this definition conflict. Typologies focus on the social meanings behind terrorist tactics and violence.

It is substantial to understand that there was a significant difference of opinions among these diverse groups. On the pro-war side were the neocons and the political leadership of the bush administration: VP Cheney, secretary of defense Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfiwutz .the neocons were convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S and they were optimistic about the ability of the U.S military action to establish a democratic government in Iraq with beneficial consequences for the middle east.at first Bush was against the decision to go to war with Iraq, but after 9/11, bush adopted the neocons vision of how national security policy should deal with the threat. However, The author argues the decision was made to rectify the profound mistake that was made by the first Bush administration. On the other side were the skeptics about the likelihood that war to depose Saddam Hussein would lead to democracy for Iraq as well as those who were dubious about some of the claims the administration made about Saddams’s WMD. The skeptic included many democrats and member’s of George H.W.Bush’s administration and some military leaders in the professional officer corps. The author points out some democrats supported the resolution because of their fear that a negative vote could be used

“Democracy and Liberalism” as the first pillar of the Bush Doctrine, a policy component that has challenged scholars in their attempts to classify the Bush Administration’s grand strategy as realist, liberal or neoconservative (Jervis 2003: 366). The Bush Doctrine has an unmistakably ideological component

Ever since 9/11 when both World Trade Center buildings were attacked by an Islamic Group, attacks by Islamic Terrorist on U.S. soil have been less of a threat than Domestic Terrorists. Domestic Terrorism has been shown these passed for years but yet again most of these cases have not been classified as acts of Domestic Terrorism they most likely fall into the category. Now the definition of Domestic Terrorism is basically "the committing of terrorist acts in the perpetrator 's own country against their fellow citizens". Now personally I don 't know how our government is working with these popular cases like Charlottesville, Las Vegas, and a new that just happened recently actually two but I 'll just say one, the New York attack that

Throughout the 21st Century, the September 11 terrorist attacks have often been described as “the most devastating terrorist attacks in history”(). However, while the scale of death and destruction that resulted from these attacks was “indeed staggering”(), the millions of people killed by government acts of terror continues to go unnoticed by orthodox terrorism research(). In this case, there is a need to examine the repressive state practices that critical scholars describe as the “single greatest threat to human and societal security”(). While there has been a large number of human rights groups that have contributed to the wide body of literature on political violence(), the overall neglect on the subject is due to “politically biased research”() that rejects the concept of ‘state terrorism’. For instance,

The study of terrorism is a growing field, primarily due to the world’s interest in the subject matter. Although death by terrorist attack is rare in the United States, as common as death by asteroid or comet (Jackson 2011: 132-133), many citizens view it as a primary concern that threatens the nation. Because of the world’s fear of terrorism, it has gained a huge budget of its own and has become a primary topic/focus. Terrorism: A Critical Introduction, written by Richard Jackson, Lee Jarvis, Jereon Gunning, and Marie Breen-Smyth, examines the orthodox study of terrorism. While analyzing the orthodox scholarship they find and discuss a few key issues. Their critique includes methods/research, emphasis on non-state actors, Western

Throughout the years , the United States has had several terrorist attacks from the inside the country and from outside the country. Other countries and even citizens of the United States have attacked the U.S. and devastated families throughout the country. Millions have died and even more have been injured from the attacks. It has taken the U.S. years to recuperate and rebuild . there have been terrorist attacks for thousands of years that have now come

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism is done by individuals and/or groups who take drastic measures in order to scare individuals into taking different course of actions. Terrorism has been around for many years, and the wider spread it became, the more people began to really research and study the epidemic. In the discussion of terrorism, individuals generally talked about the harm and destruction it caused, but some individuals argued a different point of view. Scholars have begun to see if terrorism could be justified, and if so, what would be the reason it is justified. Terrorism in certain circumstances can be viewed as justifiable due to the fact of specific elements, that led to the terrorist act.

On November 9th 2016, Donald Trump was declared the president-elect of the United States. This announcement was quickly followed by mass protests in the streets. Citizens were outraged that a candidate, whose entire platform had relied on racist and misogynistic rhetoric, could win the presidency despite losing the popular vote. The protestor’s concerns are well founded. In the last year he has promised to create a Muslim registry, forcefully deport millions of people from the country, revoke citizenship rights, as well as implement other disturbing policies. There is an inherently fascistic and totalitarian element in Trump’s campaign which should influence a closer study into the history, creation, and continuation of different forms of political terror.

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks many have sought to argue that a ‘New’ paradigm of terrorism exists and therefore that the nature of modern terrorist threats has changed. However, terrorism itself has never been clearly outlined, and as such both Copeland and Duyvesteyn argue current threats to be a continuation of older trends of traditional terrorism. More so terrorism is subjective and therefore current threats depends upon who the target is and who is reporting the attack. On the other hand, Hoffman focuses on deconstructing specifically the 9/11 attacks and in assessing potential future threats and as such is of greater use to governments seeking to deploy stringent countermeasures. The evolution of terrorist groups motivations and

Over the last couple of decades, terrorism has risen from near-obscurity to become a commonly held fear among members of society. Up until the late 90’s, incidents of terrorism never rose past 500. The numbers spiked the years following, reaching over 6,500 in 2006. (Mohamed, Roser) No longer can we dismiss acts of terrorism as irrelevant or isolated incidents. At first glance, terrorism seems irrational with motives too diverse to narrow down. For the sake of our lives and the safety of future generations, we must find ways to explain terrorism and discover ways we can stop its reign of terror in modern society. Answering these questions call for an examination and application of rationalist, culturalist, and structuralist approaches, as well as thorough investigation into a mixed design case study regarding the issue.

Have you ever had a fear for your family, your town, your country, or your world. How about the fear to have everything taken from you, destroyed, and not caring if it has hurt you or not? What about your fear and pain is, and can be someone else’s happiness? The fear of you being terrorized? That is terrorism. Someone else bringing fear and terrorizing you. That is a terrorist’s goal. Terrorism is common and is very difficult to stop. The government promises protection for the people, and their home, but they can not give that protection if they can not stop terrorism. Terrorism needs to stop to protect the live of the people, and their country.