Bush Doctrine
| Bush Doctrine | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001–2009 | |||
| |||
| Location | Global (primarily United States, Afghanistan, and Iraq) | ||
| Including | Regime change (extending traditional U.S. hegemony into the Middle East to depose hostile regimes and actively spread democratic governance, expanding beyond the containment limits of the Monroe Doctrine) | ||
| Leaders | |||
| President | George W. Bush | ||
| Key events |
| ||
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Business and personal
46th Governor of Texas 43rd President of the United States
Tenure Presidential campaigns   |
||
.jpg)
The Bush Doctrine refers to a set of interrelated foreign policy principles of the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush. These principles include unilateralism, the option of preemptive war, and the promotion of regime change. Some elements of these principles had antecedents in the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance.
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.[1][2] The Bush Doctrine became strongly associated with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.[3][4][5]
Different pundits have attributed different meanings to the Bush Doctrine. 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. This policy principle was applied particularly in the Middle East to counter international terrorist organizations and to justify the invasion of Iraq.[citation needed]
Generally, the Bush Doctrine was used to indicate a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. political influence.[6][7][8] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002.[9]
The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. 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."[10]
National Security Strategy of the United States
[edit]The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a document, the National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 17, 2002.[11] This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[12][13][14] As updated in 2006, it states:[15][16]
The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
Components
[edit]The Bush Doctrine is defined as "a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy."[17] Some of these had reemerged from the 1992 draft Wolfowitz Doctrine, which had been leaked and disavowed by the first Bush administration; Paul Wolfowitz, as deputy secretary of defense, was at the center of the new Bush administration's strategic planning.[18] Two main pillars are identified for the doctrine: 1.) preemptive strikes against potential enemies and 2.) promoting democratic regime change.[17][19]
The Bush administration claimed that the U.S. was locked in a global war; a war of ideology, in which its enemies are bound together by a common ideology and a common hatred of democracy.[17][20][21][22][23][24]
Out of the National Security Strategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: 1.) Preemption, 2.) Military Primacy, 3.) New Multilateralism, and 4.) the Spread of Democracy.[25] The document emphasized preemption, stating, "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. 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. I'm not going to suggest that it's easy, but we have not found the formula as a country."[23]
In his 2010 memoir Decision Points, Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. He stated that his doctrine consisted of four "prongs", three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (in his words)
- "Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them — and hold both to account."
- "Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
- "Confront threats before they fully materialize."
- "Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."
Unilateralism
[edit]Unilateral elements were evident early in Bush's presidency. Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", deployed "unilateralism", in February 2001 to refer to Bush's increased unilateralism in foreign policy, specifically regarding his decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty.[27][28]
There is some evidence that Bush's willingness for the U.S. to act unilaterally came even earlier. The International Journal of Peace Studies 2003 article "The Bush administration's image of Europe: From ambivalence to rigidity" states:[29]
The Republican Party's platform in the 2000 presidential elections set the administration's tone on this issue. 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. The purpose is to develop closer cooperation within NATO in dealing with geopolitical problems from the Middle East to Eurasia. The program therefore takes a broad and rather fuzzy view of Europe.
It would be premature at this stage to say that the Bush administration has had a fundamental change of heart and shed its long-ingrained reflexes in dealing with Russia.
When it comes to the future of Europe, both Americans and Europeans differ on key issues. Those differences seem to point toward three fundamental values which underpin the Bush administration's image of Europe. The first is unilateralism, of which the missile shield is a particularly telling example. The American position flies in the face of the European approach, which is based on ABM talks and multilateralism. 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.
Attacking countries that harbor terrorists
[edit]
The doctrine was developed more fully as an executive branch response following the September 11 attacks. The attacks presented a foreign policy challenge, since it was not Afghanistan that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of them.[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. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer later wrote in an autobiographical account of that address, "In a speech hailed by the press and by Democrats, [the President] announced what became known as the 'Bush Doctrine'".[33] The first published reference after the 9/11 attacks to the terror-fighting doctrine appeared September 30 in an op-ed by political scientist Neal Coates.[34]
This policy was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001,[2] and has since been applied to U.S. military action against al-Qaeda camps in North-West Pakistan.[citation needed]
Pre-emptive strikes
[edit]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. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long—Our security will require transforming the military you will lead—a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.
The stance of the Bush administration was that the harsh measures to spread the democracy worldwide are inevitable and efficacious, in which for instance, liberating Iraq would plant democracy in the area and enable it to flourish in the rest of the Middle East.[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). Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, as well as U.S. Department of State specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing U.S. foreign policy. These policies, developed after the Cold War, sought to establish a multilateral consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the policy of containment). 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.
Democratic regime change
[edit]In several speeches between late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of the U.S. foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the nation had to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without approval of international bodies like the United Nations.[6][7][8] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush declared:[38]
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.
After his second inauguration, in a January 2006 speech at the National Defense University, Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."
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] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of the U.S. use terrorism as a war of ideology against the nation. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.