The Roots of the Bush Doctrine - Term Paper Example

The Roots of the Bush Doctrine Following the end of the Bush administration and at the beginning of Obama’s second term as president of the United States, many are evaluating the long-term implications of the events of September eleven. Whereas some contend that the United States response to the terrorist attack and the subsequent articulation of the war on terror represented a radical break from established foreign policy traditions of America, others opine that the actions of the United States in the past decade after September eleven fit well within the long-term patterns of the foreign policy of America. Therefore, with regard to the bush administration’s response to the September eleven terrorist attack and the declaration of the war on terror, there are two arguments that are in opposition with each other. The first argument finds the Bush administration’s response quite radical and inconsistent with the ideals of the US foreign policy, the other opinion states that the administration’s response to the events of September eleven is in line with the foreign policy norms of the United States (Stokes and Cox 13-16). Basically, the terrorist attack occurred during Bush’s reign as president and his administration was tasked with the responsibility of responding to the event in a manner that guarantees justice to the victims, punishes the perpetrators, and asserts America’s future security. The war on terror is a perfect exemplification of the Bush administration’s blueprint towards a secure America. The articulation of the war on terror encompassed numerous parameters that were aimed at working towards a more tolerant, stable world that is good for America’s security. Some of the ideals of the war on terror have been adopted by the Obama administration as a symbol of their relevance towards a secure America. However, certain components of the war on terror have been termed as radical and inherently inconsistent with the American foreign policy. This paper evaluates the two opposite opinions regarding the US response to September eleven and the war on terror. Fundamentally, the war on terror signals a radical break from US foreign policy past in the sense that it articulates a departure from the conventional ideals of American foreign policy. On the other hand, the war on terror is largely in line with the long-term US foreign policy trends in the sense that America has always applied both diplomatic or exemplary and forceful or practical approaches in achieving its objectives in the global arena. As a result, the war on terror as exemplified by the Bush Doctrine towards American foreign policy is not a deviation from the norm rather it is an advancement of established foreign policy ideals. The only difference is that the war on terror had to be more aggressive in order to respond to the threats of the time. The last decade has indeed been very challenging for America prompting a relatively aggressive approach to foreign policy (Monten 117). The sponsorship of democracy is fundamental to the George W. Bush regime’s pursuit of both the war on terror campaign in addition to its overall impressive strategy, whereby it is supposed that American political and safety interests are promoted by the escalation of moderate political societies and values overseas. In a strategy variously typified as democratic realism, messianic universalism and national security liberalism, the Bush regime’s national security plan has focused on the direct use of U.S. armed forces along with political power to advance democracy in premeditated areas. In a mid 2004 dialogue, Bush articulated his deep aspiration to spread emancipation around the globe as a method to help protect America in future. According to Bush, the promotion of freedom directly leads to peace in every part of the world. Therefore, he pursued the war on terror as a way of ensuring a stable Middle East that will eventually produce a safer world. As a result, the Bush administration articulated a liberal order that was based on American political and military power. In line with this proposal the national security strategy stated in 2002 that the supreme position of America creates an instant opportunity to broaden the benefits of autonomy across the world. Hence, the United States endeavors to vigorously work to avail the hope of egalitarianism, expansion, free markets, along with free trade to each corner of the globe. This perception appears to be dependent on the principle that U.S. supremacy is the singular pillar perpetuating a liberal global order that is advantageous to the standards America believes in. Although a drastic departure in several other respects, the present U.S. splendid strategy’s privileging of tolerance and egalitarianism falls evenly within the normal American ambassadorial traditions. For reasons exceptional to US political practice, namely American nationalism, the dynamics that distinguish America as a self-contained political society has traditionally been described in phrases of both devotion to a set of tolerant, universal political superlatives and a perceived compulsion to broaden those norms worldwide (Monten 119). The conception of America as driving force of historical revolution and liberal transformation in the international structure therefore informs approximately the complete history of American foreign policy. According to Jeanne Kirkpatrick no contemporary idea holds larger influence in the minds of knowledgeable Americans than the conviction that it is achievable to democratize regimes anytime, wherever, and under whichever conditions. Democracy endorsement is not merely another international policy tool or idealist distraction; it is fundamental to U.S. political distinctiveness as well as sense of national principle. Although based in the similar nationalist hypothesis of tolerant exceptionalism, two challenging schools have emanated with regard to the long-term support of democratic transformation. One viewpoint that was developed by historian H.W. Brands, can be stated exemplarism visualizes America as founded in severance from Old World politics along with the balance of command organization (Melvyn 5-6). It proposes that American institutions along with values ought to be perfected and conserved, frequently but not entirely through seclusion. America exerts authority on the world via the strength of its model; an activist overseas policy may still corrupt moderate practices in America, undermining the effectiveness of the U.S. example. Second point of view vindicationism contemplates the city-on- a-hill distinctiveness, but contends that America ought to move ahead of example and embark on active mechanisms to extend its collective political principles and institutions. Henry Kissinger, on the other hand, opines that the two clashing attitudes regarding America’s conception of its global position: the US is an inspiration as well as crusader. Anthony Smith, a scholar of nationalism from Britain further acknowledges the identical dichotomy albeit in more universal terms by conceptualizing American overseas policy by drawing a peculiarity linking covenanted peoples that turn interior far from the blasphemous world and missionary peoples seeking to spread out into as well as change the world. The two perspectives, exemplarism along with vindicationism emanate from an international policy nationalism that considers America as a tool of democratic transformation in the global system. Owing this extensive agreement on ethical and strategic goals, Americans are considered to have been historically tolerant exceptionalists, the only contention being the policy mechanism with which to execute that task. One approach revolves around the notion of the America as archetype; the subsequent one is about the America as missionary as well as evangelist. At risk between them is a sequence of normative in addition to causal assertions regarding the nature of global politics and the capability of American power to generate main social as well as political transformation overseas; in essence these are competing premises of democracy support (Monten 117-119). Even though these competing approaches have prevailed throughout American political record, they have as well coexisted at diverse times. Scholars of American history commonly agree on the course of change: while the initial few generations of American political leaders supposed that America was extraordinary for the model it set, vindicationism mostly majored in the twentieth century, concluding in a Bush doctrine whereby the active along with coercive advancement of democracy is a fundamental constituent of U.S. magnificent strategy (Melvyn 4-7). It could be articulated that expansive variation in the American strategy to democracy advancement is explained completely by power. Political practicality forecasts that, because of the incentives as well as pressures generated by the global political environment, the growth and narrowing of a state’s political interests is inclined to match with changes in comparative power. Indeed, the broad transformation from exemplarism to vindicationism connects with an enormous amplification in relative power: as Americas acquired the potential to use intrusion as a system of democratic transformation, it applied. This supposition is articulated independent of discrepancy at the national level; its theoretical insinuation is that ideology along with nationalist concepts are both epiphenomenal of substance structure, or cannot take liability for any dissimilarity independent of transformations in a country’s relative influence position. Early examplarism involved the policy of leading by example in which the US practiced the ideals of democracy and freedom for other states to see and emulate. But whether this position was successful or not is subject to debate. There are schools of thought that opine that examplarism was a weak policy or simply a tool of the weak in a pursuit to foreign policy ideals. Activist democracy, on the other hand, is a pursuit for an aggressive foreign policy mechanism through which America not only leads by example but uses its political and military power to coerce other states into embracing the ideals of freedom and democracy (Pauly 56-58). This is well exemplified in the war on terror along with the Bush doctrine that has prevailed in America in the last decade. Activist democracy is a typical manifestation of vindicationism, which is immensely recognized as a strong foreign policy framework. While supremacy is an imperative factor, enduring variation in America’s democracy-advancement strategy as well turns on understated but momentous ideational swings in the principle of moderate exceptionalism. The initiators, anchored in a political-pragmatist and Calvinist outlook of politics, were cynical toward the capability of America to effect egalitarian change overseas, distrusted the focus of power essential to put into practice an activist foreign strategy, and determined to perimeter America’s liberal task to demonstrating the accomplishment of a trial in self-government. The temperament of liberal exceptionalism started to move towards the end of the nineteenth century. Diverse reform campaigns like Progressivism along with the Social Gospel, both political responses to modernization and industrialism that occurred after the Civil War, generated a different array of normative as well as helpful beliefs regarding the nature of advancement and the worth of U.S. influence to develop a more ideal social along with political order (Pillar 75). In conclusion, after the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of Obama’s second term as president, several scholars are evaluating the long-term implications of the events of September eleven. The major dilemma is whether the Bush administration’s response to September eleven and the subsequent articulation of the war on terror represents a deviation from conventional ideals of US foreign policy or whether America in the previous decade following September eleven fit well within the long-term patterns of the foreign policy of America. Opinion is divided on the two perspectives as some scholars describe war on terror and the entire US response to nine eleven as a radical shift from traditional ideals of the American foreign policy. Their arguments are based on the infamous Bush Doctrine that advocates for the active US involvement in the promotion of freedom, democracy and liberty ideals across the world to guarantee the security of the United States. The Bush Doctrine along with the war on terror represents vindicationism that articulates for both political and military force in achieving US objectives in the world. The other argument is based on the fact that the war on terror fits comfortably in the conventional principles of the US foreign policy. Therefore, the Bush administration only furthered existing principles of the American foreign policy. Works Cited Melvyn, Leffler. “9/11 in Retrospect.” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 90, Issue 5. Monten, Jonathan. “The Roots of the Bush Doctrine. Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy.” International Security, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), pp. 112–156 Pauly, Robert. US foreign Policy and the Persian Gulf: Safeguarding American Interests through Selective Multilateralism. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2005. Pillar, Paul. Terrorism and United States Foreign Policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004. Stokes, Doug and Cox, Michael. US Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Read More