On 20 September 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto overturning the established order. Not because it commits the United States to global intervention: We've been there before. Not because it targets terrorism and rogue states: Nothing new there either. No, what's new in this document is that it makes a long-building imperial tendency explicit and permanent. The policy paper, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" -- call it the Bush doctrine -- is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses.
This document truly deserves the overused term "revolutionary," but its release was eclipsed by the Iraq debate. Recall the moment. Bush, having just backed away from unilateralism long enough to deliver a speech to the United Nations, was now telling Congress to give him the power to go to war with Iraq whenever and however he liked. Congress, with selective reluctance, was skating sideways toward a qualified endorsement. The administration had fended off doubts from the likes of George Bush Sr.'s national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, and retreated from its maximal designs (at least on Tuesdays and Thursdays), giving doubters, and politicians preoccupied with their reelection, reasons to overcome their doubts and sign on.
The Bush White House chose this moment to put down in black and white its grand strategy -- to doctrinize, as it were, its impulse to act alone with the instruments of war. Hitching a ride on Al Qaeda's indisputable threat, the doctrine generalizes.
It is limitless in time and space. It not only commits the United States to dominating the world from now into the distant future, but al...
... middle of paper ...
...gned to take more than passing note of his speech. As a nation, we’re still in a trance. The leadership of the most powerful nation-state on earth proceeds to set out its grand strategy, its unified theory of everything, and its prime channels of information don’t see fit to let the populace in on the news that their government is hell-bent on empire and has said so in black and white.
Nonetheless, Bush’s strategy is now in force. It confirms suspicions and stokes paranoia. In propounding that there are no more than two models for how a society lives in the world, and that those who despise the one must enlist behind the other, it indulges in the same drastic oversimplification that motivates the terrorists. Americans will have to contend with the consequences for generations. This is why the Bush doctrine is dangerous: It’s a gift to anti-Americans everywhere.
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
It is somehow strange for today’s reader to find out that the situation with America’s foreign affairs hasn’t changed much. As some clever people have said, “The History book on the shelf is always repeating itself.” Even after nineteen years, Americans think of themselves as citizens of the strongest nation in the world. Even after the September the 11th. Even after Iraq. And Afghanistan.
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.
President Barack Obama delivered an address to the nation on the U.S. Counterterrorism strategy to combat ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) on September 10, 2014. The recent issue, which became the basis for this speech, has been President Obama’s response to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against diverse civilians. He delivered this speech to prove to the nation that he has an elaborate strategy along with several tactics to destroy the terrorist group. Obama described the ISIL in his speech by stating, “in a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they
George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, D.C.:The White House, September 2002).
The Truman Doctrine and the Development of American Foreign Policy during the Cold War On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman defined United States foreign policy in the context of its new role as a world superpower. Many historians consider his speech to Congress as the words that officially started the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine was a major break from U.S. historical trends of isolationist foreign policy. His speech led to the Cold War policy of containment.
Currents Events and U.S. Diplomacy Joseph D. Williams Professor Tracy Herman POL 300 International Problems August 17, 2016 The Reagan Doctrine The term “doctrine” definition is “A statement of authorized government policy, especially in overseas concerns and military strategy” (“Doctrine”, n.d.). The expression Presidential doctrine means an ideological platform that a president uses to spread a policy towards a country or region in order to accomplish foreign policy objectives for the United States.
The Bush Doctrine focuses largely on terrorism activity. According to President Bush’s speech on January 29th in 2002, he stated two goals. The first goal is to prevent the terrorists’ activities. In order to do that, the United States will shut down terrorists camps to make terrorists’ plan to be ruined and bring them to the court to give them judgments, moreover, be aware of the terrorists and regimes that would be threat for the United States and also to the world, by try to use chemical, b...
The transformation of America is often discussed in both popular media and academic dialogue. Each generation has a name, new technologies define new eras, and events seem only notable when they are “historic”. While major events catch the interest of a broad spectrum of the public consciousness, subtle interactions between actors and slight shifts in beliefs are constantly changing the realities of the world. When the twin towers fell in 2001, the United States seemed to be thrust into a new world of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Jihadists, and a global fight against terrorism; bombs were dropped, ground forces were deployed in foreign states, and anyone who publicly questioned the urgency of war was at risk to be labeled a traitor. This one event was indelibly branded on the consciousness of the world and if often seen as a moment of sudden transformation. Most Americans believe that the troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and while it is hard to deny that the 9-11 attacks was the impetus for putting boots on the ground, it is imperative that the chain of events following the horror of September 11 are seen to reflect the willingness and wants of actors in control before the towers fell.
On the brink of two different wars, two United States’ Presidents rose up to the challenge of calming the American people and fighting for the belief of justice. A day after devastation on December 7, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt gives his “Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation”. At the beginning of a terrorist crisis in 2001, George W. Bush announces a “‘War on Terror’ Declaration”. Both Presidents have many similarities in common, yet their differences set them apart with uniqueness. These two speeches, separate by nearly sixty years, weave an outright and assertive tone into their diction and detail.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "Terrorized by 'War on Terror'; How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America." The Washington Post. N.p., 25 Mar. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
Eagle Rules? Foreign Policy and American Primacy in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Robert J. Lieber. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2002. 152-172.
...ctual demand of terrorism will consummate the underlying issue ("International Affairs"). Though the United States cannot currently “win the hearts and minds of the Middle East in the short run”, we can take immediate action that will contribute to the end of terrorism and stabilization of the Middle East.