Critical review - Essay Example

Download file to see previous pages In his paper ‘A Grand Strategy of Transformation’, Gaddis (n.d.) has seen Bush’s NSS “the most sweeping shift in US grand strategy since the beginning of the Cold War” (p.1), which he substantiated by illustrating its differences from Clinton’s December 1999 NSS wherein he finds Bush NSS “more forceful, more carefully crafted, and – unexpectedly – more multilateral than its immediate predecessor” (Ibid). On the contrary, Wirtz and Russell (2003) believe that although Bush calls on a strategic shift from deterrence to preventive and preemptive war, varied international considerations may paradoxically push the Bush administration to rather “strengthen deterrence and existing international institutions, two outcomes that are not necessarily high on the administration’s agenda” (p. 113). Thus, essentially, it is no different from the former grand strategy. I agree with Wirtz and Russell that Bush grand strategy is no different from that of deterrence, not because of its practicality in this present international context, but because, all US grand strategies, including Bush’s, only reaffirm the American consensual view on their supremacy; thus, all strategy’s should pursue only one thing – to ensure US hegemony unchallenged.
Second, in defining the adversary, all of the articles commonly regard terrorism – specifically Al-Qaeda – the most ambitious, most ruthless, and most capable among terrorist groups – the most dangerous imminent adversary of U.S. today. However, it was Posen (2001), who had clearly described Al-Qaeda’s motive – that Al-Qaeda’s hatred of US comes from the following: the US meddling on the affairs of the Muslim nations in the Middle East; its imposed interest on the Persian Gulf and Middle East; its imposition of its Western culture that is diametrically opposed to Islam – all these result to the suffering of ...Download file to see next pagesRead More