The Main Ideas of the Bush Doctrine - Essay Example

History and Political Science Bush Doctrine Main ideas of the Bush Doctrine The main idea of the bush Doctrine is observable during the second Inaugural address of George Bush, whereby he contends that it is a policy of United States aimed at supporting growth of democratic movement and institution in all nations and cultures. The doctrine also focuses on the ultimate objective of putting to an end the tyranny in the world; hence, the statement encompasses the significance of Bush Doctrine. Nevertheless, there is a need to explore the principles, which the doctrine is based upon. The first principle relates to rejection of moral equivalency concerning international affairs, whereby the Bush Doctrine contends that there is a need for moral judgment in international affairs; In fact, the Bush Doctrine asserts that liberal democratic regimes are superior to tyrannies1. The other principle of Bush Doctrine concerns the repudiation of social work concerning the theory of terrorism, and belief of economic factors such as poverty and hunger that are regarded to be the cause of the phenomenon. In fact, Bush Doctrine is based on the assertion that terrorism led to 9/11 and precursors that were both against United States and Israel as a way of destroying western liberalism2. Moreover, this ideology is considered dangerous like fascism and communism, which prevailed during the Second World War3. Therefore, this doctrine is also considered the source of 9/11, and the aggression related to culture of tyranny that prevails in the Middle East, and generates fanatics, aggressiveness, and religious despotism. The other principle relates to recognition that after terrorism attack in September 11 conventional approaches to threats, suppression and preclusion and responses of ex post where rendered insufficient. Therefore, inadequacy prevailed in situations requiring efforts to deal with terrorism and rouge regime seeking to weapons of mass destruction. Bush Doctrine gave the rights to undertake preventive war to United States, and the international laws and norms, which embraces the right of a nation to launch strike to another nation that is imminent, hence rejecting the right of preventive war4. Bush doctrine was also considered an innovation attributed to neo-conservatism; hence, it was historical, whereby it can be described as a fusing power of America to principles that ensures the survival of principles and propagation for the benefits of the human beings. The doctrine also applies to American statecraft from the foundation of the Republic since; the principles of America are founding and significant for determining the foreign policies in U.S.A. Nonetheless, there are implications of the argument relates to linear progression from pronouncement of sovereignty by Bush as an attempt to initiate democratization process in Iraq. Iraq War in 2003 as the ultimate test of the Doctrine in practice The war in Iraq was a definitive test for the Bush Doctrine in practice, since it was initiated through a justified invasion that was in accordance with the doctrine of “pre-emption”, which refers to prevention of terrorist attack upon America. There was an assertion that the regime in Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, which were likely to be applied in as chemical weapons, to be sold to terrorist such as al Qeada5. Nevertheless, Iraq has been a primary example of rivalry towards American as the most critical part of the world since the Gulf war, though there are efforts by Americans to alter the situation with a global strategy6. In fact, the change of Iraq regime was justified as morally and pre-emptive act aim at defending Americans, through the intention was considered geo-political, whereby controlling the most significant Arab nation and its oil resources7. This gave United States significant power as a nation and beyond other nations in Europe, central Asia and China. The other practical aspect of Bush doctrine was portrayed through neo-conservatism vision of foreign policy in U.S.A that offers a theoretical and its content, which emphasized the decision of invading Iraq in 20038. The invasion was aimed at deposing Saddam Hussein’s leadership; hence, Bush Doctrine can be considered a neo-conservatism foreign policy, which leads to spreading of its assertion in various political spectrums. In situation where there is an idea of analysing Bush doctrine, there is an unprecedented shift in American foreign policy, whereby there are extracts of essential elements of the doctrine9. Therefore, this is considered vital for indicating the core elements of neo-conservatism stand of Bush Doctrine that contrasts to numerous fundamentals of realism. The situation in Iraq worsened, whereby there was increased appeal to realism that was an alternative to realism and neo-conservatism, hence this appeal reinforced the fact that was not opposed by realists administration policy. Therefore, pragmatists are the most spoken critics related to move towards war and attempts to undertake a role in debating over the interest of Americans in Iraq10. The realism seeks to establish whether Americans sought to remove Saddam Hussein from power through Iraq invasion. In fact, as far as Bush Doctrine is concerned, realism is indeed considered to have an element of pessimism in relation to prediction of radical improvement in conditions of international politics. Nevertheless, there is caution in relation to the use of military forces, hence the situation in 2003 was not warranted to apply military forces, and hence no doubts that the situation was extraordinary and results were attacks of 9/1111. Significant situations of neo-conservatism were significant in marginalization of arguments of critics and realist in relation to the decision to engage in the combat against Iraq during 2003. Nevertheless, there are critical and under reorganized ways, that neo-conservatism can apply an intellectual framework and political rhetoric in order to draw a powerful current in America political culture, hence providing connections to political constituencies that can offer support and influence through realist opposition to policies of Bush Doctrine12. Bush Doctrine's strengths and weaknesses Strengths Bush Doctrine focuses on the effectiveness of prevention against suicidal terrorist organizations though this is mistakenly perceived as a dismissal of effectiveness against rogue states such as Iraq.. In the case of Iraq, the individual like Saddam Hussein is an asset, and other assets include his security service consists of Special Republican Guards, and Saddam’s palaces. Therefore, the United States had a chance to destroy these targets as assets using nuclear weapons in a short period of time, but the Bush Doctrine was had no interest on this form of destruction. The strength relates to the doctrine focus on the principles of regime change in order to defeat threats that are posed by rogue and terrorist hosting. However, if the regime is altered there would be unacceptable, military and political risk that depends on the local, regional and international situations. Therefore, the doctrine offers incentives to facilitate unique dominance in a condition attributed to disasters after the change of regime13. Weaknesses One of the weaknesses of Bush Doctrine is inviting abuse and introducing dangerous precedent for others to emulate, since America bares the risk of doctrinal degeneration to form an excuse for attacking regimes, hence posing pre-emptive threats. Moreover, the doctrine encourages abuse by providing criteria for judging a threat in order to justify a pre-emptive attack. In fact, the Bush Doctrine considers a nation like Iraq to ne a rouge state, thus making it a target for pre-emption. However, a nation like North Korea also deals with nuclear weapons and the Bush Doctrine does not consider them a target of pre-emption. The other weakness of Bush Doctrine relates to framing the invasion of Iraq and the conviction that both terrorist and rivalry are elements that are present in Iraq. In fact, the doctrine also portrayed impatience concerning inspections of regime in order to restrain intentions of countering the rivals in a certain region that requires a change of regime. Therefore, America was able to wait longer for until the return in the spring of 2003 instead of invading Iraq. Invasion of Iraq was not the last resort as asserted by Bush Doctrine, since there are other global strategies that can be applied instead of the principles of war theory. Therefore, the weapons of mass destruction that are indicated by the Bush doctrine there was no situation of imminent danger or emergency to justify the invasion to Iraq. In fact, the same goals could have been achieved through diplomacy and inspection in order to counter the purported threat instead of invading Iraq in 200314. In conclusion, the paper has identified the main ideas of the Bush Doctrine through an elaboration of the principles involved. It also develops a discussion to determine whether the war in Iraq, during 2003 was an ultimate test of the doctrine in practice. Finally, the paper explores the strengths and weakness of the doctrine in relation to Iraq, hence achieving set objective. Works Cited A. Woodridge, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, London: Penguin, 2004. B. Woodward, Plan of Attack, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004. D. Kellner, From 9/11 to Terror War: The Dangers of the Bush Legacy, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2003. H. Kissinger, Intervention With a Vision, in ed. G. Rosen, The Right War? The Conservative Debate On Iraq, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. P. 53. I. Kristol, The Neoconservative Persuasion, in ed. Irwin Steltzer, Neoconservatism, London: Atlantic Books, 2004, P.35. J. Ikenberry, America Unrivaled: The Future of the Balance of Power, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002, P. 8. M. Cox, G. John Ikenberry, & T. Inoguchi, eds., American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. M. Cox, Hans Morgenthau, Realism and the Cold War” in ed. Michael C. Williams, Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. M. Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. P. Starobin, The Realists, National Journal 39, no. 37 (16 September 2006): P.24–31 R. Jervis, Understanding the Bush Doctrine, in Demetrios James Caraley ed., American Hegemony: Preventive War, Iraq and Imposing Democracy, New York: The Academy of Political Science, 2004, P.14. R. Kagan & W. Kristol, What To Do About Iraq, in The Iraq War Reader, eds. Micah L. Sifry and Christopher Cerf, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003, P.247. R. Krebs and J. Lobasz, Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercions, and the Road to War in Iraq, Security Studies 16, no. 3 (July-September 2007): P. 409–45. S. Rosato, The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory, American Political Science Review 97, no. 4 (November 2003): P. 585–602. Read More