I intend to review “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists” by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. The reason for choosing this article for review is simply because of its relevance today throughout the Middle East and how the American foreign policy is drastically changing the dynamics of the world.
Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling…show more content… It was also important to publish this article to illustrate the future implications of the Iraqi war on the U.S foreign policy.
Schmidt and Williams use different methods throughout the article to reach their conclusions. They state and evaluate the arguments that realists adopted in order to defer America from invading Iraq. They also demonstrate the tactics used by neoconservatives to undermine and defeat realists in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The authors engage in these different methods to reach conclusions as to why realism ultimately failed in the Iraqi debate. The subjects in this article are visibly neoconservatives and realists.
It is clear from this article that neoconservatives and realists share a very different outlook. One of the most accurate yet sombre quotes is:
“As Mearsheimer sees it, realism quickly unravels the neoconservatives' faulty logic and explains the current reality of the Iraq situation.” This statement oppresses me as it was too late to materialize and fight against the decision to invade Iraq.
The authors draw on John Ikenberry and his belief that terrorists ““cannot be
