Analysis of The Bush Doctrine - Research Paper Example

INTRODUCTION John F. Kennedy will be remembered for his glorious speech in the swearing in as the American President. But for this man’s rule, the only phrase that can be attributed is “ weapons of mass destruction”. Indeed yes but for the fact that it is his reign that in many ways than one is a weapon of mass destruction in itself. A close study of the two terms of President Bush reveals that the crux of his problem lies in the bipolar structure of politics in USA and his failure to lift the White House above the pulls and pushes of such divisional politics. When one comes to power through issues as archaic as gay marriages, euthanasia and such others, he always remains under the pressure of social pulls and shoves. Undoubtedly in a setting down as the American President, Mr. Bush has been heavily weighed down by such geopolitical crossfire. Add to that the chaos on Outsourcing deals, wherein he found favor from the huge multinationals of The United States. The progress on United States is a result of the essentially capitalist policies that it has enjoyed. The country has always been glad to play the role of Uncle Sam to the rest of the world. Any issue in any part of the world seems to be their concern. The paper however, locates the flaw of the Bush regime in its communication rather than on the policies of The United States Government on issues of the rest of the world. The President’s flaw is as regards his speeches to his own people and the rest of the world. The Bush doctrine will forever form one of the saddest and forgettable chapters in International law. This failure has been on many fronts and the crux of his problems has been the lack of communication per se. One cannot but help start the discussion with the most important issue of the war against terrorism and President Bush’s failure to convince his own people that the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have in many ways made the life of a common American safer. It is indeed such failure at a micro level that has caused the sudden and unstoppable avalanche in the approval ratings for Mr. President. BUSH DOCTRINE -----PARADIGM SHIFT IN FOREIGN POLICY President Bushs June graduation address to the cadets at West Point had attracted attention mainly because it was the first full articulation, until then, of the new strategic doctrine of pre-emption. The radical idea being touted by the White House and Pentagon is that the United States has the right to use military force against any state that is seen as hostile or makes moves to acquire weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, biological or chemical. The obvious initial test case for pre-emption is Iraq, whose government the United States was continually threatening to overthrow, either on the model of the displacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan or by some other method. George Bush’s bullishness had caused some of its traditional allies and enemies join ranks against the United States and for a proud nation that is United States the drubbing in the International comity of nations has been hard to digest and in absence of the personal charm of his predecessor, Bush has found the going tough amidst such global economic and political volatility. What is certain and scary, is the new approach to the use of international force beneath the banner of counterterrorism and the domestic climate of fervent nationalism that has existed since September 11. This new approach repudiates the core idea of the United Nations Charter (reinforced by decisions of the World Court in The Hague), which prohibits any use of International force that is not undertaken in self-defense after the occurrence of an armed attack across an International boundary or pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council. When Iraq conquered and annexed Kuwait in 1990, Kuwait was legally entitled to act in self-defense to recover its territorial sovereignty even without any UN authorization. And the United States and others were able to join Kuwait in bolstering its prospects, thereby acting in what International lawyers call collective self-defense.1 The failure of Mr. Bush lies in convincing his own people of his reasons to go to war with Iraq, in connecting with the minds of his own people to convince them how an Afghanistan and an Iraq helps them avoid another 9/11. With the death toll rising in Iraq and atrocities of American and British soldiers becoming a household story in Asia, Bush’s adventures have ensured a few generations of Bin Ladens and several 9/11s in future. Foreign policy disasters start worrying a leadership most when it does not have the mass support of the population in such decisions. Strategic decisions may or may not have worked for the Bush administration but where Bush failed was to gauge the mindset of the American people and whether they were ready for the long haul that such strategic investments often call for. A classic example will be the case of economic reforms in third world and how the government that introduces them gets the flak while one ten years on reaps the consequential benefits. The problems are coupled by the slowdown in American economy, which is in sharp contrast with the rapidly growing global economy.2 The situation is not that which calls for panic but definitely it is important for the common man to feel such comfort. There is definitely no leadership failure in United States. But the Bush administration has been completely failing time and again to comfort its people and convince them of its strategies. The communication failure has not only resulted in dip in approval ratings but has also backed that the American image before the world. The other important factor surely is the disenchantment of the American youth towards Bush and his administration. This however is not a new phenomenon and was quite expected looking at the results of the previous elections. There is a need to perceive the Bush era from a different angle. Bush and the Supreme Court The recent appointment of a Supreme Court judge and the appointment of the Chief Justice have raised many eyebrows especially as the American apex Judiciary has often been used by those in power to defy democracy through ensuring the existence of its policies and ideas through the verdicts of the Supreme Court by appointing judges by his own whims and fancies. Many among the youth fear that a conservative era will continue in the Supreme Court and that the situation will not improve as regards epoch making bills and their constitutionality. It is a known fact that if any Bill in United States has been challenged on its constitutionality then it takes a prolonged time for the judiciary to determine the issue. The idea of democracy is in garnering numbers. Yet that only works for coming to power and not farther than that. The basic rule of democracy is to have a popular mandate behind every policy decision. But most Governments simply forget them once elected and do exactly what they want to do or made to do by the kingmakers. It is important to realize that - Just coming to power does not give you the strength to rule but requires popular backing on every step.3 The Bush administration has exactly failed to do this. It has left their people behind and failed to create a mass consciousness in their favor. However much modern theories may teach us to reject the hegemonisation, it has traditionally been a great rule for the rulers to have the sake of the common man behind action. The administration’s failure to keep and detect the media in its confidence has only added fuel to fire. The Rose and administration had once very effectively used the American media to create a global outlook in favor of the Allied forces in World War. It also helped the succeeding Presidents to similarly act by creating a favorable global disposition towards USA during the Cold War. The time has come for the analysts the jags Mr. Bush in consonance with his time in history and Marxian understanding might help one understand the political obligations and necessities that have shaped the bush policies and its forgettable regime. Research methodology The methodology for such a research has to start from the internal political structure of USA and the grave political necessities at a time and place. Classical Political Science teaches us about the syndrome of cyclical elite power, a cycle cynics may say the Americans have been struck in from the inception of their political structure. Such an elitist political culture has in many ways failed to change with the multi ethnic and ever evolving rich demography of United States. Bush’s failure might just be the pressures of globalization just telling on the bipolar political structure of the United States. The methodology essentially involves collection of sources from the internet besides the use of some classical political theories. Hegel’s Dialectic Materialism, Gramsci’s Hegemonisation, and other general writings including Kautilya’s Arthashastra4, have all formed the backbone of the analysis in this work. The political analysis is based on a classical interpretation of recent incidents and actions of the Bush administration as the author finds the real cause of let alone Bush’s communication failure but also similar failures in the entire US political culture. The author intentionally has tried to further himself from the popular beliefs but has rather emphasized Bush’s failure to orchestrate and architect such popular sentiments in his favor. A structural understanding of the American polity surely helps construct a larger view of the recent political disasters. The understanding improves when one locates the crux of the problem outside the present political face and deep inside the contours of America’s age old and almost suffocating insular political culture. Reference Amal Ray & Mohit Bhattacharya, Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions, The World Press Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, 2003. Dwight Walds, “Political Science : Tradition, Discipline, Profession, Science, Enterprise”, in Fred I. Greenstein and Nelson W. Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. I, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Mass., 1975. Heinz Eulau, ‘Political Science’ in Bert F. Hoselitz (ed) A Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences, Free Press, 1959. Robert A. Dahl, Modern Political Analysis, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1963, p.6. The obstacles in the scientific study of politics have been very ably discussed by W.G. Runciman, Social Science and Political Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1965. U.N.Ghoshal, A History of Political Theories, London, 1923. Vernon Van Dyke, Political Science : A Philosophical Analysis, Stevens and Sons Ltd., London. 1960. Read More