For instance, Moens and his colleagues advise, "It bears recalling that NATO for Canada and other allies, has always made sense as a vehicle for providing at least some access into the shaping of the U.S. national interest. NATO has been good not only because it kept the Russians out and the Germans down, but because it got the Americans mixed up in the security affairs of other, reasonably like-minded, states" (13). 2.

Discuss President George W. Bush's doctrine of preemptive war?

A.

Include in your discussion, its basic assumptions. The term "preemptive war" is used to describe a nation's use of military force to attack a belligerent before it can attack the attacker. The basic assumptions of this doctrine follow those of the "Just War" tradition wherein a nation is permitted to protect itself from threats that are posed by other countries in its own self-interests (Wester 2004:20).

B.

How did this theory manifest itself in American foreign policy? Preemptive war is not a new doctrine in U.S. Or other countries' foreign policy by any measure, but its most recent use has been the source of more criticism, perhaps, that previous efforts. According to Tiefer (2004), "Even among conservatives, few if any could imagine how the terrible shock of 9/11 would create the opportunity for unilateralism in full war gear by providing the president the political strength to unleash the legal doctrines of preemptive war even against the Middle Eastern country without funding or nationals involved in September 11, 2001" (24).

C.

What criticisms are leveled against this theory? In an increasingly globalized environment, nations no longer enjoy the ability to prosecute wars -- no matter how well justified perhaps -- without the support of their allies and even nonaligned nations that will both resent and reject this use of unilateral military force without apparent provocation. In this regard, Lake (2000) noted even prior to September 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq that, "Unilateralism is a dangerous doctrine precisely because it ignores the likely reactions of others to American policy. Despite its newfound power, the United States has little...

were not able to convince the American public of the legitimacy of these motives and they certainly did not convince the international community that these were legitimate reasons for the preemptive war against Iraq. In this regard, Tiefer concludes that, "In the eyes of our NATO allies, the unilateral preemptive war in Iraq augmented America's rejection of collective means and measures just when they were most vital to support the effort against terror. In the eyes of the Islamic world, Bush simply committed further errors by preemptively invading and occupying Iraq. We badly needed a restoration of credibility" (101). Indeed, by resorting to a preemptive war approach, the U.S. has squandered the international goodwill and support that existed following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and it may be decades before the nation's credibility is fully restored to its pre-9/11 status.
Works Cited

Lake, David A. 2000. "The Self-Restrained Superpower." Harvard International Review 22(3):

48.

Mcmanus, John F. 2002, December 2. "Irreconcilable Differences." The New American 18(24):

31-33.

Moens, Alexander, Lenard J. Cohen and Allen G. Sens. NATO and European Security: Alliance

Politics from the End of the Cold War to the Age of Terrorism. Westport, CT: Praeger,

2003.

Tiefer, Charles. Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative

Causes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004.

Wester, Franklin Eric. 2004. "Preemption and Just War: Considering the Case of Iraq."

Parameters 34(4):…