| Revision as of 12:57, 4 October 2002 editFredbauder (talk | contribs)2,319 edits restore some stuff, removing some unfounded stuff, adding supportive opinion← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:23, 4 October 2002 edit undoFredbauder (talk | contribs)2,319 edits hopefully balanced, have restored most deleted materialNext 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 ]. |
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 ]. 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 ]". The National Security Strategy of the United States , released on ], ] includes the announced doctrine of pre-emptive war but as a whole expounds a policy of international cooperation and advocates multi-lateral international cooperation in dealing with ] and other threats to United States and international security. | ||
| ⚫ | A doctrine permitting pre-emptive strikes against developing threats can be seen as a change from focusing on the ] (in the ] through ]) as the primary means of ]. There is some opinion that pre-emptive was has long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the ] It is unclear as to the Bush Administration's view as to whether other countries can or should pursue a similar policy. | ||
| ⚫ | 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 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 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 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 United Nations Charter by ratification as a ] is part of the law of the United States | ||
| ⚫ | There is some opinion that pre-emptive was has long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the ] | ||
| 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." | 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." | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| See also: ], ], and ] | See also: ], ], and ] | ||
| ==External link== | ==External link== | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | |||
| * | |||
Revision as of 13:23, 4 October 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. 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". The National Security Strategy of the United States , released on October 27, 2002 includes the announced doctrine of pre-emptive war but as a whole expounds a policy of international cooperation and advocates multi-lateral international cooperation in dealing with terrorism and other threats to United States and international security.
A doctrine permitting pre-emptive strikes against developing threats can be seen as a change from focusing on the doctrine of deterrence (in the cold war through mutually assured destruction) as the primary means of self-defense. There is some opinion that pre-emptive was has long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the Cuban Missile Crisis It is unclear as to the Bush Administration's view as to whether other countries can or should pursue a similar policy.
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 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 United Nations Charter by ratification as a treaty is part of the law of the United States
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."
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.
See also: Pax Americana, hegemony, and National Security Strategy of the United States
External link
- Text of the National Security Strategy of the United States
- NYT article of September 20, 2002, the first news report of the doctrine
- NYT opinion article supportive of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, October 4, 2002
- A NYT opinion article critical of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war, September 21, 2002