Bush Doctrine

Charles Krauthammer first used the phrase in June 2001, to describe the Bush administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol.

"[1] After the September 11 attacks, the phrase described the policy that the U.S. had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

It was used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate or perceived future threat to the security of the United States.

The expression was used at least once, though, by Vice President Dick Cheney, in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few", and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.

"[26] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked thus in 2006, in a statement taken to reflect his view of the doctrine's efficacy: "If I were rating, I would say we probably deserve a D or D+ as a country as how well we're doing in the battle of ideas that's taking place.

It called for a dramatic expansion of NATO not only in Eastern Europe (with the Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania) but also, and most significantly, in the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

An opposition is taking shape here between the leading European capitals, which want to deal with the matter by judicial means, and the Americans, who want to push ahead and create a fait accompli.The doctrine was developed more fully as an executive branch response following the September 11 attacks.

[30] In an address to the nation on the evening of September 11, Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

"[31] The president made an even more aggressive restatement of this principle in his September 20, 2001 address to a joint session of Congress:[32] We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.

[citation needed] Bush addressed cadets at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York on June 1, 2002, and made clear the role preemptive war would play in the future of American foreign policy and national defense:[35] We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best.

[36] Two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush administration regarding how to handle countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (the so-called "Axis of Evil"[37] states).

The opposing view, argued by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a number of influential Department of Defense policy makers like Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that the U.S. should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower.

Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and the United States particularly exists not because of actions perpetrated by the U.S., but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.

[17][23] Elections in Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine happened as a result of this initiative in the sense that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas were allowed to participate in it.

The Reagan Doctrine was considered anti-communist and in opposition to Soviet global influence, but later spoke of a peace dividend towards the end of the Cold War with economic benefits of a decrease in defense spending.

The Reagan Doctrine was strongly criticized[41][42][43] by neoconservatives, who also became disgruntled with the outcome of the Gulf War[39][40] and U.S. foreign policy under Clinton,[40][44] sparking them to call for change towards global stability[40][45] through their support for active intervention and the democratic peace theory.

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.

[52] The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neoconservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other; a war of ideology where the U.S. must take responsibility for security and show leadership in the world by actively seeking out the enemies and also change those countries who are supporting enemies.

He examines two contending approaches to the long-term promotion of democracy: "exemplarism", or leadership by example, and "vindicationism", or the direct application of American power, including the use of coercive force.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, said he thought there was no "single piece of paper" that represents the Bush Doctrine.

[57] Experts on geopolitical strategy note that Halford Mackinder's theories in "The Geographical Pivot of History" about the "Heartland" and world resource control are still as valid today as when they were formulated.

His prescient theories, first set forth in Geographical Pivot of History, published in 1904, have rightly shaped American grand strategy since World War II.

[65][66] Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argued that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.

[69][70] Pat Buchanan writes that the invasion of Iraq had significant similarities to the 1996 neoconservative policy paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

[71] Political scientist Karen Kwiatkowski in 2007 wrote in her article "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine": We are killing terrorists in self-defense and for the good of the world, you see.

We are taking over foreign countries, setting them up with our favorite puppets "in charge," controlling their economy, their movements, their dress codes, their defensive projects, and their dreams, solely because we love them, and apparently can't live without them.

At the same time, these commentators draw attention to the number of unpopular (but U.S.-friendly) warlords achieving "legitimating" positions under United States supervision of the elections.