Monday, November 25, 2019
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2Essay Writing Service
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2Essay Writing Service The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 2The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Bush doctrine essay part 1The Major Weaknesses of the Bush Doctrine           The Bush Doctrine is criticized for its weaknesses. Although the Bush Doctrine is aimed at the sort of the democratic peace worldwide, there is some negative aspect of this approach because â€Å"the Bush Doctrine holds that aggressive democratizing wars can be fought in order to spread democracy and bring about the democratic peace†(Fiala, 2008, p.11). This fact means that wars are considered to be the major tool for the establishment of the democratic peace worldwide. Many researchers suggest that the Bush Doctrine contributed to the creation of the so-called â€Å"just war myth†, which is used in political life, encouraging the established American military traditions and encouraging people to think that â€Å"wars are noble adventures that produce good ou tcomes†(Fiala, 2008, p.11). However, in real life, wars are considered to be horrible events, which lead to deaths and sufferings. The Bush Doctrine is focused on offensive policy rather than a defensive one. According to researchers, the Bush Doctrine defines the US right to start wars as the legitimate right to provide national security, although it is focused on war actions (Fiala, 2008; Jervis, 2003).           Besides, many critics of the Bush Doctrine argue that it represents a highly ambitious conception of the U.S. foreign policy, which may cause damage to American society (Jervis, 2003). Researchers are based on the idea that the Bush Doctrine creates a â€Å"period of great threat and great opportunity†, because the doctrine’s principles call not only for the assertion of American power, but also for the expansion of American power, establishing hegemony in the  in world of political economy (Jervis, 2003). Robert Je rvis (2003) believes that the assertion and expansion of American power is not likely to succeed at the global level.           In addition, the Bush Doctrine is unsustainable. Robert Jervis states that despite some successes of the Bush Doctrine, it cannot be fully sustained because it generates a number of serious internal contradictions. The Bush Doctrine requires establishing a more sustained and more effective domestic support than is possible under such conditions (Duncan et al., 2008). It becomes clear that the Bush Doctrine makes demands on intelligence in the U.S context, placing too much faith in democracy and democratic principles. Thus, it appears to be overly ambitious, focusing on the addressing many complex issues. Robert Jervis argues that it will rather difficult to â€Å"construct a replacement foreign policy†(Jervis, 2005, p.370).           Moreover, the Bush Doctrine is criticized by cons ervatives on two fundamental grounds, including the lack of assertiveness in its implementation and the failure to anticipate and effectively address the post-Saddam occupation. Conservatives criticize the Bush Administration for letting â€Å"Syria and Iran get away with encouraging terrorist infiltration into Iraq†(Renshon, 2010, p. 28). As the Bush Doctrine is recognized as a set of various strategic premises of the U.S. government to establish peace in the world, it provides different approaches to dealing with the so-called â€Å"axis of evil†, including three aggressive states Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Stanley A. Renshon (2010) suggests that â€Å"critics point to the different treatment these states received as evidence of the Doctrine’s inconsistency†(p. 29). Iran, Iraq and North Korea are dictatorships, which cannot be explained by the Bush Doctrine because of confusion about the key elements of it.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â à ‚ In fact, there are many examples that demonstrate the failures of the Bush Doctrine. These examples prove the limits of American power at the global level. According to critics of the Bush Doctrine, this policy â€Å"disrupts the balance of power by advocating that the United States use its military force unilaterally and preventively without international support for military action†(Duncan et al., 2008, p. 154).           Furthermore, the Bush Doctrine provides vague policy on the war on terrorism. According to this policy, terrorism is represented as a method that refers to the implementation of the military strategy at the global level (Duncan et al., 2008).  The enemy is defined based on ideology. According to researchers, â€Å"the adversary is a worldwide radical Islamic insurgency comprising ideological Islamic militants, not an enemy, called â€Å"terrorism†(Duncan et al., 2008, p. 154). Besides, the Bush Doctrine vio lates the established and accepted international obligations, international treaties, which guarantee peace. Actually, the United States failed to gain international acceptance of this doctrine. The United States advocated preventive military attacks, as well as unilateral action, without international support (Duncan et al., 2008).           One of the vague examples of the Bush Doctrine that can be assessed as a failure of the doctrine is â€Å"justification of the U.S. attack and occupation of Iraq, which has dramatically alienated Muslims across the globe and decentralized the world†(Duncan et al., 2008, p. 154). As a result, the Bush Doctrine failed to organize and promote the unification of the international community to address and fight radical Islamism (Bonyanian, 2009). Many countries of the Muslim world have developed the so-called anti-US policy of sentimentalism (Yasmeen, 2006; Duncan et al., 2008). Anti-Muslim biases presented in the doctrine violate the established international relations (Yasmeen, 2006). Many critics would agree that the U.S occupation of Afghanistan is a part of the U.S. foreign policy that is directed on the neutralization of Muslim states across the globe. The Bush Doctrine confuses terrorism with the struggle for freedom (Yasmeen, 2006). The response of the international community to the U.S. invasion of Iraq was negative because it provided a critique of the Bush Doctrine. The U.S. was accused of the unilateral use of preemption (Weaver, 2009).Conclusion           Thus, it is necessary to conclude that the Bush Doctrine has been developed as a new policy to provide support to the U.S right to engage in preemptive war against both terrorist groups and rough states that produce weapons of mass destruction, assisting terrorists. The Bush Doctrine is portrayed by the National Security Strategy as a logical continuation of the widely accepted Cold War s trategy of nuclear deterrence, which is closely connected with emerging threats of spreading terrorism. The Bush Doctrine has both strengths and weaknesses. In general, the Bush Doctrine is focused on promoting democracy, attacking the states that support terrorists and implementing preemptive strikes that contribute to the future of American foreign policy and national defense policy. However, the Bush Doctrine violates a set of accepted international obligations, international treaties, which guarantee peace globally. As a result, the Bush Doctrine has led to development of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world that comes from the increased U.S. violence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.