| Revision as of 00:20, 29 September 2002 editFredbauder (talk | contribs)2,319 edits removed bad white house link and restored NYT link← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:33, 29 September 2002 edit undoFredbauder (talk | contribs)2,319 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The '''Bush Doctrine,''' first announced on ], ] by ], the ] during the national debate in the ] over the ] is the proclamation of the right of the United States to wage pre-emptive war should it be threatened by terrorists or rogue states that are engaged in the production of ] such as ]. This is a change from focusing on the doctrine of deterrence (in the cold war through mutually assured destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. Advocates of the Bush Doctrine maintain that it is part of a broader long-term United States strategy to promote freedom throughout the world, with the view that free peoples are typically less likely to be in armed conflict with each other. This is a significant change from the cold war period when the primary aim was to contain communism and the United States was more often willing to support totalitarian regimes that opposed communism. Sceptics might argue that it is doubtful that the United States is proposing the doctrine of use of pre-emptive force as a general principle of ] for use by all nations as possible mischief is easily imaginable or that the allies of the United States such as ], ], and ] could be described accurately as "freedom loving." They might argue that is |
The '''Bush Doctrine,''' first announced on ], ] by ], the ] during the national debate in the ] over the ] is the proclamation of the right of the United States to wage pre-emptive war should it be threatened by terrorists or rogue states that are engaged in the production of ] such as ]. This is a change from focusing on the ] (in the ] through ]) as the primary means of ]. Advocates of the Bush Doctrine maintain that it is part of a broader long-term United States ] to promote freedom throughout the world, with the view that free peoples are typically less likely to be in armed conflict with each other. This is a significant change from the cold war period when the primary aim was to contain ] and the United States was more often willing to support ] regimes that opposed communism. Sceptics might argue that it is doubtful that the United States is proposing the doctrine of use of pre-emptive force as a general principle of ] for use by all nations as possible mischief is easily imaginable or that the allies of the United States such as ], ], and ] could be described accurately as "freedom loving." They might argue that is more likely the doctrine reflects the asymetrical viewpoint of the one remaining ] and is meant to apply only to the actions of the United States as the dominant power in the world. They might further argue that ], which this doctrine emphasises, has been a stated objective of the United States at least since the ]. | ||
| On ], 2002 an article in the New York Times |
On ], 2002 an article in the New York Times described a document prepared by the office of the President to be submitted shortly to the Congress of the United States entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States", which outlines the doctrine. | ||
| The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." This, in effect, is designed to create a deterrence to countries that seek to use military might to oppose the Unites State's policy. Maintaining the strongest military capability in the world gives the United States a unique ability to act unilaterally if it chooses. This ability has created significant concern in many nations, since a hallmark of post World War II international relations has been multi-lateral agreements prior to comencement of military action (primarily through United Nations Security Council resolutions), except in cases of direct attack by an enemy. This was codified in Article 51 of the ] which specifically acknowledges the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" by a member state if an armed attack occurs, "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The Bush Doctrine takes the view that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical) are so severe that pre-emption is warranted when the United States views that traditional deterrence will not be effective. This is most likely in the case of rogue states who harbor terrorists who "seek martyrdom in death." Thus an advocate of the Bush doctrine might argue violation of Article 51 of the ] which restricts the unilateral use of force to self-defense against "armed attack" is justified despite ratification of the United Nations Charter as a treaty thus making it part of the law of the United States. | The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." This, in effect, is designed to create a deterrence to countries that seek to use military might to oppose the Unites State's policy. Maintaining the strongest military capability in the world gives the United States a unique ability to act unilaterally if it chooses. This ability has created significant concern in many nations, since a hallmark of post World War II international relations has been multi-lateral agreements prior to comencement of military action (primarily through United Nations Security Council resolutions), except in cases of direct attack by an enemy. This was codified in Article 51 of the ] which specifically acknowledges the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" by a member state if an armed attack occurs, "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The Bush Doctrine takes the view that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical) are so severe that pre-emption is warranted when the United States views that traditional deterrence will not be effective. This is most likely in the case of rogue states who harbor terrorists who "seek martyrdom in death." Thus an advocate of the Bush doctrine might argue violation of Article 51 of the ] which restricts the unilateral use of force to self-defense against "armed attack" is justified despite ratification of the United Nations Charter as a treaty thus making it part of the law of the United States. | ||
| There are many critics of the Bush Doctrine, with the |
There are many critics of the Bush Doctrine, with the criticism relating primarily to the United States' policy of being able and willing to use military force unilaterally. These critics view that requiring any country (especially the United States) to obtain international support prior to commencing military action is a necessary check on the power of a single nation. In addition, many criticisms have arisen around the doctrine's assertion that the United States will never allow any other nation to develop the military capability of challenging the U.S. as the world's sole superpower. In effect, this establishes the principle of a ] in perpetuity, with the United States alone granting for itself the sole authority to act unilaterally to pursue its agenda. | ||
| ===External Links=== | ===External Links=== | ||
Revision as of 00:33, 29 September 2002
The Bush Doctrine, first announced on September 4, 2002 by George W. Bush, the President of the United States during the national debate in the United States over the U.S. plan to invade Iraq is the proclamation of the right of the United States to wage pre-emptive war should it be threatened by terrorists or rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction such as Iraq is alleged to be doing. This is a change from focusing on the doctrine of deterrence (in the cold war through mutually assured destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. Advocates of the Bush Doctrine maintain that it is part of a broader long-term United States strategy to promote freedom throughout the world, with the view that free peoples are typically less likely to be in armed conflict with each other. This is a significant change from the cold war period when the primary aim was to contain communism and the United States was more often willing to support totalitarian regimes that opposed communism. Sceptics might argue that it is doubtful that the United States is proposing the doctrine of use of pre-emptive force as a general principle of international law for use by all nations as possible mischief is easily imaginable or that the allies of the United States such as China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia could be described accurately as "freedom loving." They might argue that is more likely the doctrine reflects the asymetrical viewpoint of the one remaining super power and is meant to apply only to the actions of the United States as the dominant power in the world. They might further argue that Military domination of the world, which this doctrine emphasises, has been a stated objective of the United States at least since the Joint Vision 2020.
On September 20, 2002 an article in the New York Times described a document prepared by the office of the President to be submitted shortly to the Congress of the United States entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States", which outlines the doctrine.
The doctrine also states that the United States "will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." This, in effect, is designed to create a deterrence to countries that seek to use military might to oppose the Unites State's policy. Maintaining the strongest military capability in the world gives the United States a unique ability to act unilaterally if it chooses. This ability has created significant concern in many nations, since a hallmark of post World War II international relations has been multi-lateral agreements prior to comencement of military action (primarily through United Nations Security Council resolutions), except in cases of direct attack by an enemy. This was codified in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which specifically acknowledges the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" by a member state if an armed attack occurs, "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The Bush Doctrine takes the view that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction (nuclear, biological or chemical) are so severe that pre-emption is warranted when the United States views that traditional deterrence will not be effective. This is most likely in the case of rogue states who harbor terrorists who "seek martyrdom in death." Thus an advocate of the Bush doctrine might argue violation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which restricts the unilateral use of force to self-defense against "armed attack" is justified despite ratification of the United Nations Charter as a treaty thus making it part of the law of the United States.
There are many critics of the Bush Doctrine, with the criticism relating primarily to the United States' policy of being able and willing to use military force unilaterally. These critics view that requiring any country (especially the United States) to obtain international support prior to commencing military action is a necessary check on the power of a single nation. In addition, many criticisms have arisen around the doctrine's assertion that the United States will never allow any other nation to develop the military capability of challenging the U.S. as the world's sole superpower. In effect, this establishes the principle of a Pax Americana in perpetuity, with the United States alone granting for itself the sole authority to act unilaterally to pursue its agenda.