The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay
The Bush Doctrine reflects the U.S. President Bush’s policy aimed at spreading democracy at the global level. The U.S. has developed a representative form of democracy, which serves the public interests (Gurtov, M. 2005). However, the Bush Doctrine has its strengths and its weaknesses because people have different attitudes toward the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine. Actually, the Bush Doctrine is one of the widely used phrases, which refers to the key principles of George W. Bush’s foreign policy (Buckley & Singh, 2006). The phrase “the Bush Doctrine” was first used by Charles Krauthammer, an outstanding American political commentator, who utilized it in 2001 to define the Bush Administration’s policy aimed at withdrawing from signing the ABM treaty and the Kyoto protocol (Fiala, 2008). Later, after the tragic event of 9/1, the phrase “the Bush Doctrine” was used to define the policy developed by the United States with the major goal – to secure the country and its citizens against those countries that assist terrorists. This policy was utilized to justify the U. S. led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001(Jervis, 2003). President Bush used the doctrine in his numerous speeches. According to Andrew Gordon Fiala (2008), “it is stated in the policy of the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS)”(p. 121). Besides, the Bush Doctrine was used in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to researchers, “traditionally, the United States has employed its military forces in retaliation for an attack rather than striking first itself” (The Limits of Power, 2002, p.1). The Bush Doctrine can be viewed as the neoconservative justification of the military domination of the United States at the global level, specially developed to promote democracy, but it has not only its strengths, but also its weaknesses.
The Bush Doctrine: Background Information
The Bush Doctrine is an important approach to solving various global issues. According to Andrew Gordon Fiala (2008), the Bush Doctrine is “an idealistic approach to international relations that imagines a world transformed by the promise of democracy and that sees military force as an appropriate means to utilize in pursuit of this goal” (p. 121). The Bush Doctrine has several elements or components. First, the Bush Doctrine generates a strong belief in the significant role of the U.S. domestic regime in determining and developing its foreign policy, as well as the corresponding judgments that this doctrine creates “an opportune time to transform international politics” (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). Democratic regime is associated with peace and peaceful international environment. Democracy lies in the basis of American ideals. According to Robert Jervis (2005), “this means that he current era is one of the great opportunities because there is almost universal agreement on the virtues of democracy”(p. 351). Second, the Bush Doctrine generates the public perception of the existence of great threats that should be defeated only by the use of new and strong policies, the so-called preventive wars (Fiala, 2008). Major threats come from terrorists, connected with the use of the weapons of mass destruction and tyrannical regimes (Buckley & Singh, 2006). Third, the Bush Doctrine involves the “willingness to act unilaterally when necessary” (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). The third element of the Bush Doctrine places emphasis on the inability to provide adequate defense and effectively deal with these threats. Some preventive actions are necessary, including war actions (Jervis, 2003). Fourth, the Bush Doctrine is based on the belief that democratic peace and stability worldwide require the United States to “assert its primacy in the world politics” (Jervis, 2003, p. 365). This element of the Bush Doctrine can be explained by the fact that “although the widest possible support should be sought, others cannot have a veto on American action” (Jervis, 2005, p. 351). The Bush Doctrine was represented in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002.
Actually, the formulation of the Bush Doctrine involves the collection of the major strategic principles, which are associated with further practical policy decisions and a set of premises for maintaining and guiding the U.S. foreign policy. There are two key approaches in the doctrine, including preemptive strikes against all types of potential threats and promotion of the democratic regime change globally (Dunmire, 2011). According to the Bush Administration policy, the United States faces the global war, which can be defined as the war of political ideology (Dunmire, 2011). This ideology is common among the enemies of the United States, and demonstrates severe criticism of democracy. Researchers highlight the role of neo-conservatism of American foreign policy that was defined by the Bush Doctrine. In fact, the Bush Doctrine justifies the U.S. decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and contribute to deposing the government of Saddam Hussein (Schmidt & Williams, 2008).
In general, the National Security Strategy provides four main components that are identified as the core principles of the Bush Doctrine: preemption, the establishment of the military primacy of the United States, the development of new multilateralism, and the spread of democracy globally. The National Security Strategy document placed emphasis on preemption, saying that “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” (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2002). The doctrine was based on the defense of the state, its citizens and their interests both at home and abroad. The foundation of the Bush Doctrine is military strength (Fiala, 2008). The U.S. is engaged in all types of preemptive strikes to stop all possible threats. This fact means that the Bush Doctrine highlights the major goal of the U.S. policy – “to build and maintain the U.S. military strength beyond challenge” (Hayden, 2013, p. 65).
The Major Strengths of the Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine has a number of strengths. President Bush managed to develop an assertive and powerful military doctrine that is focused on providing the proper methods to avoid the threat of armed intervention. President Bush highlights the importance of the U.S. protection and security strategies, which help to stop the nations that are developing weapons to put the country and its citizens in peril. As a result, the Bush Doctrine is based on the use of “conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons” (The Limits of Power, 2002, p.1).
The Bush Doctrine has been used to justify and highlight the military adventures of Americans. It has been accepted as an effective tool to support the military operations and the current war policies (Fiala, 2008). This fact means that the Bush Doctrine has been successful. According to researchers, “it is one of the reasons that the nation fell obediently behind the president during the early years of the war on terrorism”(Fiala, 2008, p. 71). Moreover, the Bush Doctrine justifies the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush Doctrine guarantees the idealism of American Exceptionalism because of its focus on foreign intervention and considerable changes in political regime (Renshon, 2010). President Bush explained the effectiveness of his doctrine in the following way:
We have a place, all of us in a long story – a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is a story of a new world that became a friend and liberator o the old, a story of a slave holding society, that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect, but not possess, to defend, but not to conquer. It is the American story – a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals (qtd. in Filala, 2008, p. 71).
The Bush Doctrine is closely connected with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and deals with the strategic tactics. The Bush Doctrine was used to respond to the strategic challenges caused by the events of 9/11 (Kaufman, 2007; Renshon, 2010). The Bush Administration managed to use the doctrine to find out who should bear responsibility for the terrorist attack, as well as to assess the meaning of the attack. According to Stanley A. Renshon (2010), “the speed and range of the Bush Doctrine’s substantive development coupled with the geographic range of its actionable implications are a very substantial, but little acknowledged aspect of the administration’s response” (p. 30).
There are many examples that demonstrate the successes of the Bush Doctrine. The U.S. succeeded in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, providing the opportunities for democratic elections in the country and facilitating the victory of the new president (Kaufman, 2007). In addition, the Bush Doctrine “deserves credit for keeping Al-Qaeda on the run thwarting its ambitions to mount another devastating attack on the United States”( Kaufman, 2007, p. 46). According to President Bush and his Administration, the promotion of democratic regime abroad is crucial to the success of the United States in the war policy against the spread of terrorism (Jervis, 2003). Bush states that it is the major goal of the U.S. government’s grand strategy aimed at the expansion of the political and economic power of the United States (Monten, 2005; Jervis, 2003).
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2
Do you like this essay?
Our writers can write a paper like this for you!
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...