Discover

The 'Bush Doctrine' is a phrase used to describe a policy outlined in a National Security Council text entitled the ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' published on September 20, 2002^[1]

Contents

Overview

Comparison with previous US foreign policy

Criticisms of the Bush Doctrine

Assertions and admissions of illegality in the case of Iraq

References

See also

External links

Books

Overview

In the events following September 11, 2001 attacks two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush Administration regarding the critical policy question of how to handle allegedly dangerous 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 during the long years of 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, 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 form the basis for the Bush Doctrine.
The Bush Doctrine argues for a policy of pre-emptive war in cases where the U.S. or its allies are threatened by terrorists or by rogue states that are engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. The policy of pre-emption represents a rejection of deterrence and containment as the principal foundations of U.S. foreign policy because, it is argued, terrorists cannot be deterred in the same way as states. According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.

Comparison with previous US foreign policy

While previous preemptive actions have been justified on the basis that the threat was imminent, the Bush Administration's view, as stated in the strategy paper is that "military preemption" is legitimate when the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."

Criticisms of the Bush Doctrine

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^[2] in the Chicago Tribune, Anup Shah’s ^[3] in Globalissues.org and Nat Parry’s April 2004^[4] in ConsortiumNews.com. This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the Just War Theory and would constitute a war of aggression.^[5] The main argument against these criticisms is that the doctrine redefines self-defense by simply reinterpreting and expanding the acceptable time horizon for a perceived possible threat.^[6] Patrick J. BuchananPatrick J. Buchanan, Whose War?, The American Conservative, March 24, 2003 writes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq has significant similarities to the 1996 neoconservative policy paper ''.

Assertions and admissions of illegality in the case of Iraq

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan made public statements to the effect that the war in Iraq was illegal under the U.N. charter,^[7] and Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle so much as admitted that the preemptive war was unlawful, saying, "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," adding, "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone."^[8]

References

1. ''National Security Strategy of the United States''National Security Council, September 20, 2002.
2. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0624-01.htm article
3. Globalissues.org
4. http://consortiumnews.com/2004/041204.html article
5. http://journals.cambridge.org/article_S1537592703000021
6. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/03spring/record.pdf
7. Iraq war illegal, says Annan BBC, Thursday, 16 September, 2004
8. War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal The Guardian,
Thursday November 20, 2003

See also

★ The One Percent Doctrine

★ Command responsibility

★ Jus ad bellum

★ War of aggression

★ War on Terror

External links

★ OpenDemocracy debate on the Bush Doctrine

★ 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)

★ Grant F. Smith, ''Dogma #1 Strike 'First', ''Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy'', March 2006.

★ 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 [1]

★ 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

★ 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