The origin of the Bush Doctrine can be traced back to the September 11 terrorist attack in the United States. President George W. Bush was forced to come up with foreign policies and objectives to combat future terror attacks in a document known as the Bush Doctrine. Particular aspects in the document were codified with a file referred to as the National Security Strategy (NSS.). The National Security Strategy is a file that talks about the objectives of the US foreign and military policies and how the government intends to achieve them. Since its establishment, the Bush Doctrine has transformed and moralized the America’s commitment to fight terror. Not only does this subject terror to the conventional confines of police action, but also the solid America military control. The doctrine dictated different changes in the conventional terms of war and diplomacy. Particularly, the Bush Doctrine condemned the neutrality in the “first war of the 21st century “ by stating that every country had a decision to make when it came to dealing with the terrorist (Bush, 2002). It was either they are with the United States on the fight against terrorism or with the terrorists. Since then, the United States declared a hostile regime on any nation that harboured terrorists or supported terrorism. The paper is set to evaluate the Bush Doctrine and the emerging National Security Strategy and discuss issues pertaining to their strengths and weaknesses.
It is evident that the establishment of the NSS by Bush’s administration stirred several debates and analysis from a majority of Americans. The document has received both praise and criticism over many years. When it comes to praise as stated by Lee (2005), as section of individuals perceive it as an effective strategy to curb the future terror threats facing Americans. On the other hand, criticism is seen when people view the new strategy on a more radical basis because they believe it s washing away the American foreign policy tradition.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Even though the new Bush NSS is a brave and upfront declaration of America’s objectives towards curbing terrorism, a bigger part of the document articulates the implicit components in American strategy because the US was perceived to be a greater power. The nature and the emerging magnitude of terror attacks in the international scene have promoted the congress as well as other policy makers to suggest adjustments of the document.
There have been four major outstanding themes in the Bush NSS that have led to controversies. First, the document mandate for pre-emptive military action against unreceptive nations and terrorist groups focused on creating weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The second controversial theme in the NSS is that the United States will not tolerate any state challenging its global military power. Thirdly, the NSS file displays a strong commitment to multilateral global cooperation but clarifies that the United States will not hesitate to act alone while defending national interests and security in case a need comes up. The fourth premise is that the NSS declares the goal of promoting human right and democracy around the world especially in the Muslim countries. The post 9/11 period has seen major transformations in the American foreign policy (Wheeler, 2003). The threats from international terrorism go beyond the stipulated traditional strategies of deterrence and containment (Gaddis, 2005). During Cold War periods, the most effective approach to maintain national security in America was through deterrence and containment since America was fighting a state. However, the Bush administration dismissed the policy of containment and deterrence when dealing with global terrorism especially after 9/11 attacks. Hence, the Bush National Strategy was based on pre-emptive approaches. Many people in the Western world a as well as the Americans questioned the 9/11 act and perceived it as a weakness in the national security protocol. The most important question to ask ourselves is whether the pre-emptive strategy was effective and if it advocated for sovereignty.
In the current emerging national strategy policies, there have been debates about the difference between adopting pre-emptive strike and preventive war. According to a section of policy makers, assuming preventive measures would be illegal since it is highly likely to cause unwarranted wars and distort sovereignty (Keller, 2006). In my opinion, I support the act of pre-emptive measures in the NSS because involves a good offense as a defense. Waiting for danger to strike will be a poor national security action because the outcome might be disastrous like the 9/11attacks or worse. Therefore, it is wise to take action before the actual attack strikes. Meanwhile, it is prudent to acknowledge that a fine line exists between pre-emption and preventive approaches. I believe applying both approaches will solidify the security and the military power. Besides, the international law supports the use of pre-emptive measures when dealing with intermittent attacks.
Furthermore, the contemporary international system heavily dwells on international legal framework, economic and political institutions as well as other alliances with other countries the US established when World War II ended. Even amidst the vigorous attempts to revise the Bush Doctrine, many states in the United States have been reluctant to replace the existing system. It is seen that the formulation of the strategy was strongly conservative and process-oriented. Based on this, one can argue that this was a limitation because it lacked vigorous strategic thinking in within the various national security agencies. Simply, too much concentration has been channelled to the previous administration (Bush’s) limiting the development for future strategies. As reads through the document, they discover that various branches of the United States government are stool still striving to catch up with intermittent dangers. This is because there is a weak integration of the policies as well as priorities that match the security goals and aspirations. As compared to Bush’s administration, the Obama administration some issues that would affect the future strategic planning of national security (Obama, 2010). The document was divided into four sections, which included security, prosperity, values, and international order. When the themes are combined, they advocate for collective action, promotion of global security to ensure peace prevails, and the current terror threats thwarted.
In conclusion, The Bush National Security Strategy is an elaborate and important work in the promotion of national security and policy, and it is not shocking that it has stirred debates and drawn attention worldwide. It is factual to argue that the NSS is widely consistent with the American conventional strategies while setting a coherent upfront, which is significant in protecting the American policy in the world of increasing terror threats. In comparisons with the previous national security strategies that have been used, it can be considered a worthy successor as became the definitive statement of American post-war strategy. Moreover, the National Security Strategy paints the United States power as resurgent and international, but mainly focusing on human rights, economic stability, and democracy. While striving to attain these factors, the United States continues to solidify alliances against global terrorism, advocate for human dignity, establish agendas for integrated action with other global powers, improve the national security agencies, and expand developmental circles to maintain and enhance the infrastructure of democracy.
References
Bush, G. W. (2002). The national security strategy of the United States of America . Executive Office of the President Washington Dc.
Gaddis, J. L. (2005). Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War . Oxford University Press.
Keller, W. W., & Mitchell, G. R. (2006). Preventive Force. Hitting first: Preventive force in US security strategy , 239.
Lee, H. (2003). The Bush Doctrine: A Critical Appraisal. The Korean Journal 0flntema60nal Relations , 43 , 1-48.
Obama, B. (2010). National Security Strategy of the United States (2010) . DIANE Publishing
Wheeler, N. J. (2003). The Bush Doctrine: The Dangers of American Exceptionalism in a Revolutionary Age. Asian Perspective , 183-216.
