Primarily, the Bush doctrine refers to a phrase used to illustrate many ideas that relate to the US foreign policy. Initially, the term was used to infer to the notion that a given place that hides terrorists may be regarded similar to terrorists themselves (Krauthammer, 2001). Further, the idea encompasses other implicit rights the US had in the universal arena, including the highly controversial right to declare the preemptive war. The phrase, Bush Doctrine was fundamentally used when President Bush first assumed the office. In fact, from February 2001, the phrase was employed to mean what was seen as the movement of the president towards the unilateralism. Furthermore, Bush exemplified this when he decided to withdraw the United States of America from the subject of Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty (Cox, 2004). However, the core of the Bush Doctrine was formulated in the period of the September 11 terrorist attack. The president famously announced that we should make no division between the terrorists who actually commit the acts as well as those who hide them (Lieber, 2002). Therefore, in his decision, he decided to initiate the way for the attack on Afghanistan despite the fact that the country of Afghanistan had not truly invaded the United States. After the 9/11 attacks, many people were worried that the terrorist may attack the US again. Therefore, this worrying trend created a huge implication on the country and even changed the manner the US would handle the places that hide the terrorist (Krauthammer, 2001). Hence, the Bush Doctrine represented one of the changes that came because of the 9/11 attacks where the doctrine suggested that an attack must be done on potential terrorist threats before they actually invade the US.
In essence, various pundits have given many meanings to this particular doctrine. Others see it as the way that has been used to show precise policy elements that encompass the approach of the preemptive strikes used as a defense against an imminent threat to the United States security (Jervis, 2003). The policy also majorly focused on the Middle East nations to help counter the multinational terrorist organizations. Hence, the doctrine was applied to depict the disposition to pursue the United States military interests unilaterally (Jervis, 2003).
National Security Strategy
The major elements within the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a single paper, National Security Strategy that describes the supreme goals of United States military and foreign policy as well as a broad framework of how to attain them. This document was published on 17thSeptember 2006 and mainly been cited as the definitive statement of the Bush Doctrine. After that, the document was updated in 2006. The introductory part of the National Security Strategy states that it is just a matter of self-defense and common sense that the US shall act against any emerging threats (especially of weapons of mass destruction spread) before they fully materialize (Daalder et al., 2002). America as well as the friends cannot be defended by just hoping for the best. Therefore, the country must always be prepared to overcome the threats that stem from the enemies plans by applying the refined intelligence as well as moving wit deliberation. History shall judge austerely those who observed the impending danger yet failed to act accordingly. Hence, the new world we now live in, the single path to security as well as peace is the just to assume the way of action.
In viewpoint, this National Security Strategy is the most extensive presentation so far among the policies that the president articulated in his tenure where some of which shows a stagy departure from the known national strategy of the past periods. The prime threat to the US, the document states, no longer stems from the rival powers inclined on conquest but from the disastrous states that hide terrorists. Deterrence and containment represent two masts of the Cold War strategy, which are dismissed as principally archaic.
To some extent, I agree with certain issues and policies in this document due to the following reasons. First, it provides limitless in space and time. Not only it commits the US to controlling the world from now and even in the future, but it also advocates what it terms the preemptive utilization of force where the US shall act against the new threats right before they entirely emerge (Lieber, 2002). Second, given the seen abilities of the terrorists, this document puts the US in the prime position to no longer depend on the non-proliferation, which is a multinational strategy to regulate the spread of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and missiles that may deliver them. This policy has counter proliferated the much active as well as the aggressive strategy that may encompass the pre-emptive strikes.
On the other hand, I also do not agree with some policies and issues in the document. The Bush National Security Strategy displays romance, bluster, and illogic in the same measure. The premise is that the United States is basically righteous. Finally, the international concern, as well as fury this National Security Strategy has caused for detouring global process and even agreements obligations, has made countries to worry regarding the nature and intent of the US power.
Cox, M. (2004). Empire, imperialism and the Bush doctrine.Review of International Studies, 30(04), 585-608.
Daalder, I. H., Lindsay, J. M., & Steinberg, J. (2002).The Bush National Security Strategy: An Evaluation.Brookings Institution.
Jervis, R. (2003). Understanding the Bush doctrine.Political Science Quarterly, 118(3), 365-388.
Krauthammer, C. (2001). The Bush Doctrine.American Foreign Policy, a New Motto: Don’t Ask. Tell. Time March,5, 2001.
Lieber, K. A., &Lieber, R. J. (2002).The Bush national security strategy.US Foreign Policy Agenda, 7(4), 32-35.