The Bush Doctrine and the emerging National Security Strategy introduced by President Obama plays an essential part in strengthening the security of the United States. However, both policies could be argued because of personal belief, perception, and interpretation and in some cases opinions about each President. It’s necessary to look at each policy in both situations and apply them to the ongoing threat and the war on terrorism and understand how this affects National Security Strategies.
The Bush Doctrine introduced after the 9/11 terrorist attacks addressed foreign policies that quickly became known as a doctrine focusing on terrorism. The positive side of this doctrine was the focus on combating global terrorism. It includes the ability to defend against terrorism and those countries which support groups to commit terrorist activities. Furthermore, it should be understood that a piece of the doctrine also attempted to instill democracy by making the world a safer place (Nacos, 2012). American’s were relying on the confidence and commitment of the government to prevent future attack and to maintain a safer nation. This part of the Bush doctrine is reassuring that the United States is focused on the safety and security of the American people, and as a nation the attention to fight terrorism was foremost.
Unilateral use of force was one point described by President Bush as a means to combat terrorism threats. His message, straightforward and stern reassured the commitment of the United States to remove these threats. The uncertainty and apprehension of additional attacks on American soil resonated for some time after 9/11, Bush made it known that America would not tolerate anyone planning to conduct terrorist acts ...
... middle of paper ...
... Lessons have been learned over the years from preplanning, establishment of interagency agreements and simply cooperation between organizations. Obama has set the ground work nicely in working to establish international partnerships. In the emergency management world, establishing plans in preparation to manage a hurricane, tornado or disaster is essential, a town cannot run such an incident alone and outside resources and partnerships are needed and must be prearranged to assist in the mitigation. Fighting the war on terrorism is similar and knowing who is coming to help when the incident occurs is important, not knowing who is coming and not knowing who is willing to assist in the heat of the moment can be devastating. Therefore, future security strategies must maintain the international partnerships in order to maintain the safety and security of America
What were the major impacts on American foreign policy during the H.W. Bush & Clinton Administrations? How did Bush & Clinton define the post-Cold War world for the United States?
Before the events of 9/11 the US had been attacked before and we were aware of possible threats. However, these threats, specifically those of Al-Qaeda were not taken seriously by American foreign policy makers or regular Americans alike, so on September 11, 2001 Americans were truly shocked by the scale of devastation and loss of life that occurred. The effect these attacks had on America was incredible. In the years that followed Americans became fearful and discriminatory of religious groups; the government created the Department of Homeland Security and enacted stricter search and seizure laws, and America’s foreign policy became defined by unilateral decision making and preemptive war.
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.
She strengthens the persuasiveness of these statements with an authoritative and informed tone. She also references a poll about how people feel that the Bush administration should deal with security in the United States. Poll participants were asked if they felt the government under Bush was adequately dealing with the matter of security and it was found that “only 11 percent thought the administration had gone too far” (251). She may rely on such techniques so readers do not react too strongly to her essay and instead focus on the validity of her
We will come together to give law enforcement the additional tools it needs to track down terror here at home. We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike. We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy and put our people back to work.” (Bush
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
The 65-year evolution of the National Security Advisor (NSA) and the National Security Council (NSC) staff into an influential shaper of US foreign policy reflects an acceptance by successive iterations of national leadership that America’s place in the world necessitates a small, yet decisive body capable of producing viable options to deal with a complex world. Although its prominence has ebbed and flowed from administration to administration (and even within individual terms of office), the overall assessment remains that the NSC staff, and by extent the NSA, stand as “attractive tool[s]” for presidential political and policy maneuverings. Their importance is also rooted in historical reasons as well.
This investigation evaluates the Carter Doctrine and the impact it had on 9/11. In order to successfully investigate the Carter Doctrine and its impact, one would have to evaluate its role in events leading to the tragedy of 9/11. The Carter Doctrine will be analyzed from the different perspectives such as different countries in the Middle East specifically the countries the terrorists of 9/11 were from. Those terrorists and those they worked will be analyzed for their philosophies on the US’s participation in the Persian Gulf. However, this particular investigation will not investigate the different forms of government of the Persian Gulf and the US.
September 11, 2001 was one of the most devastating and horrific events in the United States history. Americans feeling of a secure nation had been broken. Over 3,000 people and more than 400 police officers and firefighters were killed during the attacks on The World Trade Center and the Pentagon; in New York City and Washington, D.C. Today the term terrorism is known as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives (Birzer, Roberson). This term was clearly not defined for the United States for we had partial knowledge and experience with terrorist attacks; until the day September 11, 2001. At that time, President George W. Bush, stated over a televised address from the Oval Office, “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.” President Bush stood by this statement for the United States was about to retaliate and change the face of the criminal justice system for terrorism.
As we move steadfast into the twenty-first century we are confronted with more complex and compromising issues affecting the intricately connected global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend countless hours configuring ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking within and across national borders. Instead of submitting ourselves to the tyranny of chance, which cruelly deals out futures blighted with catastrophes that can remain vivid in our memories, President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an attempt to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism in the United State; he issued the Executive Order of Homeland Security as that initial step.
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...
Welch, Gruhl, Rigdon and Thomas (2011) assert that, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the executive power is granted solely to the President of the U.S. This clause of the constitution has continued to draw significant constitutional debate since the ratification of the Constitution. For example, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, in 1793 questioned whether the clause affords residual power to the President outside the enumerated powers stipulated in the Constitution. This debate is still significant in the contemporary times because it has a direct impact on the power of the President, and also, as an essential insinuation, it impacts on the freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizenry at home and in foreign countries. In this context, Pika and Maltese (2004) argue that, it is essential to mention a number of prominent Supreme Court cases that involve the outline of executive powers that have transpired, informed by in the perspective of foreign affairs, as well war. Therefore, it is not unforeseen that today, in the War on Terror, the...
On september 11, 2001 there was an attack on America. Four airplanes were hijacked, two were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the third crashed into the Pentagon in D.C. and the fourth got stopped by a passenger. It was the first terrorist attack on the U.S. soil. Thousands of lives were lost that day. This attach was the most devastating act of belligerence on U.S territory since the Civil War (Terrorism, 2011). This even had an enormous influence on America and its history. It led to numerous short and long term effects. On September 20, 2001, former president George W. Bush announced publicly that he declares “War on Terror”. After this announcement, our country has altered. To determine if an effect was positive or negative, determines on the view point of the person. Some of those effects include; USA Patriot Act, creation of TSA, the War, and issues soldiers have after combat and health problems of Ground Zero. However, if the effects were positive or negative, it still made a massive mark in our country.
In the past decade U.S. security policy has been driven largely by counterterrorism efforts, which past and present administrations have identified as a top national security priority. The 2002 National Security Strategy concerning Africa reflected a need for a more focused strategic approach toward the continent: “In Africa, promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease, war, and desperate poverty. This threatens both a core value of the United States—preserving human dignity—and our strategic priority—combating global terror.” (Ploch 2011)
Gupta, S. (2008). The Doctrine of pre-emptive strike: Application and implications during the Administration of President George W. Bush. International Political Science Review. 29(2), p.181-196.