Revision as of 17:40, 12 September 2008 edit24.19.173.135 (talk) →Controversy← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:41, 12 September 2008 edit undo96.238.211.119 (talk) The Palin news is relevant as the Bush Doctrine is being heavily discussed today. Regardless of the term's arguable ambiguity, she is now linked with it.Next edit → | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Critics of the Bush Doctrine are suspicious of the increasing willingness of the US to use military force unilaterally. Some published criticisms include Storer H. Rowley’s June 2002 article in the Chicago Tribune,<ref></ref> Anup Shah’s at Globalissues.org,<ref></ref> and Nat Parry’s April 2004 article at ConsortiumNews.com.<ref></ref> Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argue that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.<ref> Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, "The Sources of American Legitimacy," ''Foreign Affairs'' (November/December 2004), pp. 18-32</ref>. It is also argued that the Bush Doctrine is too ideological and not pragmatic enough. There are further criticisms of the ] ideology. Others have stated that it could lead to other states resorting to the production of WMD’s or terrorist activities.<ref>Richard Falk, "The New Bush Doctrine," ''The Nation'' July 15, 2002.</ref> This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the ] and would constitute a ].<ref>Neta C. Crawford, </ref><ref>Jeffrey Record, </ref> ]<ref name=Buchanan>], , ], March 24, 2003</ref> writes that the ] has significant similarities to the 1996 ] policy paper '']''. | Critics of the Bush Doctrine are suspicious of the increasing willingness of the US to use military force unilaterally. Some published criticisms include Storer H. Rowley’s June 2002 article in the Chicago Tribune,<ref></ref> Anup Shah’s at Globalissues.org,<ref></ref> and Nat Parry’s April 2004 article at ConsortiumNews.com.<ref></ref> Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argue that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.<ref> Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, "The Sources of American Legitimacy," ''Foreign Affairs'' (November/December 2004), pp. 18-32</ref>. It is also argued that the Bush Doctrine is too ideological and not pragmatic enough. There are further criticisms of the ] ideology. Others have stated that it could lead to other states resorting to the production of WMD’s or terrorist activities.<ref>Richard Falk, "The New Bush Doctrine," ''The Nation'' July 15, 2002.</ref> This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the ] and would constitute a ].<ref>Neta C. Crawford, </ref><ref>Jeffrey Record, </ref> ]<ref name=Buchanan>], , ], March 24, 2003</ref> writes that the ] has significant similarities to the 1996 ] policy paper '']''. | ||
==Controversy== | |||
In her first national interiew with ], Republican vice presidential nominee ] appeared unfamiliar with the term and did not to know it meant. Some claim that the term is ambiguous, which is why Palin did not know. | |||
Revision as of 17:41, 12 September 2008
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan. Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way. Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002. This represented a dramatic shift from the United States's Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.
The first usage of the term to refer to the policies of George W. Bush may have been when conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer used the term in February 2001 to refer to the president's unilateral approach to national missile defense.
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002, and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine. The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.
Overview
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group that was then based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. President Bush decided soon after the 9/11 attacks that the proper response was not just military attacks against Al Qaeda bases, but deposing the Taliban altogether and installing in their place a U.S.-friendly government. This presented a foreign-policy challenge, since it was not the Taliban that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of the attacks. In an address to the nation on the evening of September 11, Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that "we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
Later, two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the question of how to handle countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ("Axis of Evil" states). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as US Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing US foreign policy. These policies, developed after the Cold War, sought to establish a multilateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that America should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower. President Bush ultimately sided with the Department of Defense camp, and their recommendations.
These principles are sometimes referred to as the Bush Doctrine although the term is often used to describe other elements of Bush policy and is not universally recognized as the single concept. Among the signers of PNAC's original Statement of Principles were a number of people who later gained high positions in the Bush administration, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.
Out of the National Security Stategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy. The document emphasized pre-emption by stating: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."
Another part of the intellectual underpinning of the Bush Doctrine was the 2004 book The Case for Democracy, written by Natan Sharansky and Ron Dermer, which Bush has cited as influential in his thinking. The book argues that replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified, since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism, than dictatorial ones.
Criticisms
Critics of the Bush Doctrine are suspicious of the increasing willingness of the US to use military force unilaterally. Some published criticisms include Storer H. Rowley’s June 2002 article in the Chicago Tribune, Anup Shah’s at Globalissues.org, and Nat Parry’s April 2004 article at ConsortiumNews.com. Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argue that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.. It is also argued that the Bush Doctrine is too ideological and not pragmatic enough. There are further criticisms of the neoconservative foreign interventionism ideology. Others have stated that it could lead to other states resorting to the production of WMD’s or terrorist activities. This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the Just War Theory and would constitute a war of aggression. Patrick J. Buchanan writes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq has significant similarities to the 1996 neoconservative policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
Controversy
In her first national interiew with Charlie Gibson, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin appeared unfamiliar with the term and did not to know it meant. Some claim that the term is ambiguous, which is why Palin did not know.
See also
- Command responsibility
- Foreign policy doctrine
- Iraq Liberation Act
- Jus ad bellum
- Powell Doctrine
- The One Percent Doctrine
- United States Presidential doctrines
- War on Terrorism
References
- Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity, Steven R. Weisman, The New York Times, April 13, 2002
- Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror", Mike Allen, Time Magazine, May 2, 2007
- First Things First, Mark Levin, ...and another thing (National Review blog), August 16, 2006
- Confronting Iraq, Susan Page, USA Today Education, March 17, 2003
- ^ National Security Strategy of the United StatesNational Security Council, September 20, 2002.
- Krauthammer, Charles (2001-02-26). "The Bush doctrine: In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell". CNN.
{{cite news}}
: Text "accessdate 2008-09-12" ignored (help); line feed character in|title=
at position 20 (help) - Editorial (2003-04-13). "Aftermath; The Bush Doctrine". New York Times.
{{cite news}}
: Text "accessdate 2008-09-12" ignored (help) - Editorial (2002-09-22). "The Bush Doctrine". New York Times.
{{cite news}}
: Text "accessdate 2008-09-12" ignored (help) - Gitlin, Todd (January/February 2003). "America's Age of Empire: The Bush Doctrine". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/
- Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation, September 11, 2001
- Project for the New American Century Statement of Principles, June 3, 1997
- Keir A. Lieber and Robert J. Lieber,
- Chicago Tribune,
- What the president reads, John F. Dickerson, Time, January 10, 2005
- Critics Say Bush Doctrine Might Provoke 1st Strike
- Globalissues.org The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strikes; A Global Pax Americana
- The Bush Doctrine's Vietnam Paradox
- Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, "The Sources of American Legitimacy," Foreign Affairs (November/December 2004), pp. 18-32
- Richard Falk, "The New Bush Doctrine," The Nation July 15, 2002.
- Neta C. Crawford, Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War
- Jeffrey Record, The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq
- Patrick J. Buchanan, Whose War?, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003
18. Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. kanet, eds., From Superpower to Besieged Global Power: Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2008).
External links
- Edward A. Kolodziej, Getting beyond the Bush Doctrine, Center for Global Studies, December, 2006.
- Roger Speed & Michael May, Dangerous Doctrine, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April 2005.
- Jeffery Record, The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq, Parameters, Spring 2003. (html version)
- Chip Pitts et al., War, Law, and American Democracy , OpenDemocracy.net, October 25, 2006.
- George W. Bush et al., The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002
- Defense Policy Guidance 1992-1994
- Patrick Tyler. U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop A One-Superpower World, New York Times, March 8, 1992.
- http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf
Books
- Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War, New York & London, Oxford University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-19-517338-4
- Bennett, William J. Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, New York, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003. ISBN 0-385-50680-5
- Chernus, Ira Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers, 2006 ISBN 1-59451-276-0
- Dolan, Chris J. In War We Trust: The Bush Doctrine And The Pursuit Of Just War, Burlington, VA, Ashgate, 2005. ISBN 0-7546-4234-8
- Dolan, Chris J. and Betty Glad (eds.) Striking First: The Preventive War Doctrine and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy, New York & London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. ISBN 1-4039-6548-X
- Donnelly, Thomas The Military We Need: The Defense Requirements of the Bush Doctrine, Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute Press, 2005. ISBN 0-8447-4229-5
- Gaddis, John Lewis Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-674-01174-0
- Grandin, Greg Empire's Workshop: Latin America, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, New York, Metropolitan Press, 2006. ISBN 0-8050-7738-3
- Hayes, Stephen S. The Brain: Paul Wolfowitz and the Making of the Bush Doctrine, New York, HarperCollins, Forthcoming (2007?). ISBN 0-06-072346-7
- Kaplan, Lawrence and William Kristol The War over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission, San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2003. ISBN 1-893554-69-4
- Kolodziej, Edward A. and Roger E. Kanet (eds.) From Superpower to Besieged Global Power: Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine, Athens, GA, University of Georgia Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-8203-3074-7
- Shanahan, Timothy (ed.) Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about the War on Terrorism, Chicago & LaSalle, IL, Open Court, 2005 ISBN 0-8126-9582-8
- Smith, Grant F. Deadly Dogma, Washington, DC, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2006. ISBN 0-9764437-4-0
- Tremblay, Rodrigue The New American Empire, West Conshohocken, PA, Infinity, 2004, ISBN 0-7414-1887-8
- Woodward, Bob Plan of Attack, New York, Simon & Schuster, 2004. ISBN 0-7432-5547-X
- Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror, Ithaca Press, 2007 ISBN 978-0863723216
Foreign relations of the United States | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
George W. Bush | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||
Presidency |
| ||||||
Life and legacy | |||||||
Speeches | |||||||
Elections |
| ||||||
Public image | |||||||
Books |
| ||||||
Popular culture | |||||||
Family |
| ||||||