The Doctrine of President Bush Essay

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

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.

Crawfor argues against George Bush in his article "The Slippery Slope to preventive War" published that same year. His argument focuses on the lack of evidence for preemptive war and that it will just lead to instability and fear. Crawfor argues that there is reasonable evidence that al-Qaida desires to harm the U.S but that it is unfair to assume that rogue states have the same intent. This erases the difference between terrorists and the states they reside. Yet there are distinctions that make a difference. You cannot start a war with the excuse that a potential adversary might be out there somewhere triggered the offensive use of force. Crawford argues that this is not preemption but indeed paranoid aggression. The U.S has to accept vulnerability and uncertainty of potential threats and adversaries. They have to avoid exaggerating the threat, all this does is heighten their own fear. Crawford believes that their needs to be a middle threshold in place. Having a threshold that is too high can allow adversaries to plan and commit acts of terror before the U.S has time to deter or react. On the contrary having too low of a threshold will leave some states defensively arming themselves because they are afraid of the preemptive state or arm offensively because they resent the preventive war aggressor who may have killed innocent people on their mission for total security. Crawford uses this as an example for why fear of possible attack is not enough to justify this

Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds by implementing the current Administration’s defense spending budget. The dawn of 2014 finds this debate ongoing and the implementation of this budget well in progress, with even more drastic cuts taking effect than the ones analyzed by Hanson previously. While few historians of repute would argue against the reality that the siren song of defense reductions has lured the nation onto the shoals of unpreparedness for future conflict many times in the past, two shortcomings in Hanson’s piece beckon us to pause and reexamine.

The foreign policy of the United States has changed drastically between eras. During the Gilded Age, America experienced isolationism. The US focused on expanding their borders locally and seizing control of Central America. With the first rise of global and total war, America transitioned to being somewhat interested in foreign affairs while still staying neutral to its own cause. However, that did not last long with America's hand forced and entered World War I as an associate to the Allied Powers. Twenty years after World War I, another World War started after Germany wanted revenge for their “unfair” treatment. America was once again forced into the war after Japan, Germanys ally, surprise attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. After the end of World War II, American isolationism completely ended and the US found itself as a global superpower. With the end of the world wars came a Cold War solely focused between the US and the Soviet Union. The US got itself into unwinnable wars, attempts to overthrow communist regimes, a weapons race, and a technology race. Foreign policy shifts between Détente and escalation. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cold War came to an end and America focused on allies and trade. The long peace ended with the September 11 attacks. These attacks launched America into a War on Terrorism, and they adopted the Bush Doctrine. Over the course of American history, foreign policy transitioned from isolationism into the “Empire of Liberty,”

This paper discusses the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973. Though this resolution was passed by Congress to give it more say in declaration of war and the deployment of American troops to foreign countries promising hostilities, this aim has hardly been achieved. The War Powers Act remains as one of the most contentious legal provisions in the American constitution and has been the subject of several debates and interpretations. More often than not, one finds American soldiers actually engaged in hostilities in foreign lands without the explicit or even implied support of the US Congress. This paper discusses why this is so and hypothesizes that realpolitik has significantly contributed to the practical ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act. Structurally, this paper will first proceed to present a brief history of the War Powers Act and its intended purpose. Afterwards, the linkage between realpolitik and the Act will be discussed.

George W. Bush was born in New Haven, Connecticut on July 6, 1946. Just like other presidents, he had his good times and his bad times. He was the forty-third president of The United States. Because of those who had preceded him in The Oval Office, he understood the importance of being the Commander in Chief. In all of the events that happened during his presidency he never gave up on his country (Biography; Gale: Vol 21).

George Walker Bush is the son of the 41st President George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush. Born on July 6, 1946, Bush was raised in Houston, Texas and was the oldest of four children. Bush finished his high school years at Phillips Academy, which was an all-male boarding school in Andover, Massachusetts, where he was the head cheerleader during his senior year. Bush went to college at Yale University from 1964 till his graduation in 1968 where he finished with a Bachelor’s degree in history. In the fall of 1973, Bush attended the Harvard Business School, where he earned an MBA. He is the only US President to have earned an MBA. He also is the first US President to get into office with a criminal record, as he had multiple

Many strategies have been devised by empires over centuries, these strategies and decisions have helped shape the world as it is in its present state. The author explains how strategic decisions made in the past were the wrong decisions in his opinion, as John Perkins had seen first hand the devastation that could be caused by the American government in its pursuit for a “global empire”.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

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

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created

The Next Decade, a novel by George Friedman, talks about the predictions of countries in the upcoming decade and how the United States should react to the various challenges. The novel’s first major claim is that the United States is actually an empire, similar to how Rome and Great Brian were. However, unlike the previous empires, the United States refuses to acknowledge its status as an empire. “What makes the United States an empire is the number of countries it affects, the intensity of the impact, and the number of people in those countries affected.” The implication of this quote is that the US has gotten to be so large, if the US decided to draw out of global affairs, the impact would be detrimental. Instead of escaping its duty to the world, Friedman claims that the United States must acknowledge its status as an empire and function as such in order to maneuver the next decade. This claim is a wise claim made by Friedman, but it his only claim of worth in the novel. In The Next Decade, Friedman fails to make his thesis credible because he doesn’t his sources, provide logical arguments on his predications of the future, or examine alternative possibilities.

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It

Previously, I perceived our opponents to be the “bad guys” and the United States to be the heroes that were helping people around the world. While this may be true in some applications, I’m no longer naïve to the fact that the U.S. isn’t handing out millions of dollars in economic interest simply because it’s the right thing to do. Rather, I believe that most military conflicts the U.S. has engaged in over the last century, as well as the current battles in Syria and throughout the Middle East, stem principally from economic motivations. While I’m undecided in the political debate that exists between political parties over the term imperialism itself, I’ve become keenly aware of how much of our country’s foreign policy is driven by the economic needs of its citizens. The profound change I’ve experienced is in remaining mindful as to the influence on foreign policy that receptive markets and favorable political conditions in countries throughout the world has.