Bush Doctrine From the Early

¶ … Bush doctrine

From the early years of the Cold War in the post World War II period until recently, the United States had followed a foreign policy of 'containment.' The policy's main objective was to prevent the spread of Communism from the Communist countries to the non-communist countries. By keeping Communism contained within the borders of the Communist countries, the United States hoped to reduce its influence and weaken it. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 that effectively ended the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy of containment continued until the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Immediately after the attack, President George W. Bush changed the long-term U.S. foreign policy by introducing the so-called 'Bush doctrine'; a policy that favors pre-emptive war, unilateralism, military pre-eminence of the United States and an active promotion of democracy and freedom all over the world. This paper gives an overview of the U.S. foreign policies of 'containment' and the 'Bush doctrine' by tracing their origins and discussing how and why these policies evolved. It also looks at the pros and cons of the Bush doctrine and examines whether its implementation has been successful so far.

Policy of Containment: Origin and History

The doctrine of containment is based on the theory that isolation leads to stagnation -- a tactic employed during wars since the ancient times by laying seige to an enemy inside a castle and isolating it by cutting off its supply lines. Such containment invariably weakened the enemy leading to its defeat.

Following the Second World War, the Soviet Union, fresh from its military success against the Nazi Germany, emerged as a super power and sought to spread the ideology of Communism beyond its borders in Europe and other parts of the world. The policy of 'containment,' aimed at preventing the spread of Communism, was first articulated by the American diplomat and U.S. State Department adviser, George F. Kennan, in his famous article titled "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" suggesting a "long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies." (Quoted in "Containment" article-Nuclearfiles.org) 'Containment,' soon became one of the two main pillars (the other being 'deterrence') of the U.S. foreign policy and it was a prominent feature of the "Truman Doctrine" that sought to block the spread of Communism by offering American support for regimes threatened by Communism any where in the world.

The theory of Containment as the guiding light of the U.S. foreign policy was further re-inforced by the introduction of the "Marshall Plan" through which the U.S. offered massive economic aid to Europe in order to prevent such economic conditions in which Communism thrives. The U.S. government also sought to contain the spread of Communism in South East Asia by intervening militarily in Korea and Vietnam. After the deabacle in Vietnam and the forced withdrawal of U.S. forces in 1974, the foreign policy of 'containment' received a setback and evolved into a policy of 'detente' or 'peaceful co-existence' until the 1980s. President Reagan implemented a policy of renewed arms race in order to hurt the Soviet Union economically since its already weak economy was unable to match such competition. It ultimately collapsed in 1991 but the U.S. foreign policy of 'containment' remained in place. ("Containment" Wikipedia Article)

The 'Bush doctrine': its Roots and Implementation

The Defense Planning Guidance Draft of 1992: Although the 'Bush doctrine' was unveiled only after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, its roots lie in a "Defense Planning Guidance" text drafted by Paul Wolfowitz for the Department of Defense in 1992. In the draft, Wolfowitz argued for a new military and political strategy in a post-Cold War world. The document dubbed "containment" as a relic of the Cold War and suggested that America should adopt a more aggressive foreign policy, carry a big stick, and use its military power to preempt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). He further opined that if in doing so, America has to act alone, i.e., adopt a policy of "unilateralism" rather than "multilateralism," it should not hesitate in doing so. ("Chronology: The Evolution of the Bush doctrine")

Controversy erupted as the Wolfowitz draft was leaked to the press and the White House ordered the-then Defense Secretary Cheney to rewrite it. The revised draft made no mention of the proposed strategy of preemption or unilateralism. The policy of 'containment,' therefore, continued.

Neo-Cons' Letter to President Clinton (1998): A group of neo-conservatives including some of the most influential figures in the future Bush administration such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Richard Armitage, and John Bolton sent an open letter to President Clinton in 1998, arguing for a much stronger global leadership role for the U.S. In the post-Cold War period. The letter called for exhibition of "military strength and moral clarity" while dealing with "rogue states" and warning that the policy of 'containment' being followed in Iraq was "dangerously inadequate." Regime change in Iraq by force was also recommended.

Hence, the neo-conservative 'hawks' had a definite 'plan' for the foreign policy direction of the United States long before it was actually implemented.

George W. Bush & His Foreign Policy 'Tutors': When George W. Bush decided to run for the 2000 U.S. Presidential Elections, number of 'neo-conservative hawks' such as Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld, as well as 'pragmatic realists,' e.g., Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice became his foreign policy tutors. ("Chronology:..." Para on "Bush Considers Presidential Run") When George W. took office in January 2001, neo-cons jockeyed for foreign policy posts in the new administration and succeeded in securing the posts of Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld), the deputy secretary of defense (Paul Wolfowitz) and the Vice President's chief of staff (Lewis "Scooter" Libby). However, Colin Powell's appointment as the Secretary of State was a formidable counterweight to the Pentagon hawks that prevented an immediate change in the U.S. foreign policy direction.

Terrorists Provide the Opportunity: The 911 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon provided the opportunity for the foreign policy hawks in the Bush administration to implement their hard-line agenda. Immediately after the attacks, President Bush declared that "the U.S. would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." Bush followed up this pronouncement with an even more explicit explanation of the policy in his televised speech to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 by warning: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The implication of the policy was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 when the Taliban regime refused to hand over the Al-Qaeda terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden; it also resulted in a policy U-turn by the Pakistan government, which had previously been the leading supporter of the Talibans.

From Containment to Preemption: While making a graduation day speech at West Point on June 22, 2002, President Bush announced a major shift in the U.S. national security policy from the long-standing policy of containment to preemption by declaring, "Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." He also called for the need of American hegemony: "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge." (Quoted in "Chronology:..." Para on "Bush Calls for a Policy of Pre-emption") Both the pronouncements echoed the 1992 "Defense Planning Guidance" draft of Paul Wolfowitz.

Formal Pronouncement of the Bush doctrine: The U.S. National Security Strategy

In September 2002, one year after the 911 terrorist attacks and twenty months after taking office, George W. Bush released his administration's National Security Strategy (NSS), formally outlining the various elements of the 'Bush doctrine' in one document.

The document officially confirmed the U.S. foreign policy shift from its Cold War paradigm of containment to a more assertive global posture thought, by the supporters of the new policy, to be befitting of the lone super-power in the world.

The main points of the NSS are:

Preemption: It announced a policy of pre-emptive war against terrorists and rogue states that supported terrorism or threatened the U.S. Or its allies with Weapons of Mass Destruction. It did, however, note that "the United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression." But went on to proclaim: "...in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." ("Prevent Our Enemies..." Chapter V of "The National Security Strategy Paper")

Unitaleralism: The NSS also declared that the U.S. had the right to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multi-lateral solutions cannot be found. Repeating the adage of "offense as the best form of defense," the document states:

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense.

Quoted in "Strengthen Alliances..." Chapter III of "NSS" paper)

Not long after the unveiling of the Bush doctrine vide the NSS, the United States demonstrated its practical application by taking unilateral military action against Iraq despite opposition from most of its key allies and not having a specific UN Resolution to do so.

US Hegemony: Another key feature of the Bush doctrine that appeared in the NSS was that the United States was determined to maintain its military pre-eminence and worldwde military supremacy. It is explicitly state in the NSS policy document: "our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." The intent to dissuade others from surpassing its military strength indicates a desire for U.S. hegemony. ("Transform America's National Security..." Chapter IX of "The NSS paper")

Actively Promoting Democracy, and Liberty around the World: The Bush doctrine exprsses the intent to actively spread democracy and freedom in all regions of the world. This was a long-held dream of the "neo-conservative" hawks, who have believed that American-style democracy can and should be actively promoted in all parts of the world, especially in the Arab and Muslim countries in order to contain the lure of Islamic fundamentalism in countries ruled by monarchies and dictatorships. The policy is based on an up-dated version of the "domino theory" -- the belief that the establishment of a "model" democracy in a key Muslim, Middle eastern country would have a knock-on domino effect in the whole of the region.

Pros and Cons of the New Bush doctrine

There has been plenty of criticism of the 'Bush doctrine,' both at home and at the international level especially by the left-liberal critics. On the other hand, the supporters of President Bush and the neo-conservative columnists dub the previous U.S. policy of containment as outdated in the post-Cold War period and the introduction of the more aggressive Bush doctrine as long overdue.

Cons:

Tarnished U.S. Image: The Bush doctrine of 'pre-emption' -- elevating an implicit policy option of striking first into an explicit doctrine has altered the long-held image of a benign superpower that would always use its overwhelming power with restraint, into that of a unilateralist, overbearing, hyperpower, which is insensitive to the concerns of others. (Record, 17)

Invitation to Isolation and Enmity: The neo-conservative agenda of permanent American primacy through perpetual military supremacy, and the willingness to use force preemptively incorporated in the 'Bush doctrine' to 'end' rogue states and threatening regimes invites perpetual isolation and enmity. According to one prominent analyst, "An explicit American hegemony.... nakedly based on commercial interests and military power it will lack all legitimacy. Terror will continue, and worse, widespread sympathy with terror." (Sir Michael Howard quoted by Record, 18). This means that the long-term effect of the Bush doctrine has placed America in a more hostile and divided world at heightened risk from terrorists, making it more insecure than ever.

Unethical Doctrine: The doctrine of "dissuad[ing] potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in the hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States," as expressed in the U.S. National Security Strategy, cannot be justified ethically. In effect, this doctrine means that while the quest for acquiring military power is legitimate for the United States, it is not so for other countries. This may be an appropriate reflection of Social Darwinism and the theory of 'survival of the fittest' in a world where 'might is right,' but the policy can certainly not be justified ethically.

Invites Abuse and Sets a Precedent for Others. The doctrine of preemptive war invites abuse because it offers no criteria by which to judge whether a threat justifies a preemptive strike. The U.S. invasion of Iraq is an appropriate example of such a 'preemptive' war in which there was arguably no imminent threat of an attack except in the sole judgment of the Bush administration. It also sets a dangerous precedent for others to follow in order to settle their regional differences. There are a number of current political disputes around the world in which the stronger adversary could invoke the 'preemptive' doctrine to attack its weaker neighbor. For example, China could attack Taiwan over the question of Taiwan's independence; India could attack Pakistan over the Kashmir dispute, and Russia is already threatening to attack Georgia over the alleged cross-border terrorist activities of Chechen guerillas.

Democracy Cannot be Exported: Critics of the neo-con agenda of exporting American-style democracy to the Middle East warn about the inappropriateness of such an adventure. They point to the warnings of Thomas Jefferson, who despite being a great proponent of democracy always believed that the institutions of democracy cannot be successfully enforced from outside and no foreign power can create a state of freedom in another nation.

Pros

Threat of Terrorism needs New Strategy: There is no doubt that the threat of terrorism is vastly different from a conventional threat such as was faced by the U.S. from the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Terrorists do not follow rules of war and, therefore, cannot be countered through outmoded policies such as that of containment and deterrence. Only preemption can possibly prevent terrorist attacks.

Preemption by U.S.: not the First time: The critics of the Bush doctrine would have us believe that such a policy is being followed by the U.S. For the first time. This is far from correct. Before the War of 1812, James Madison authorized military operations in Spanish Florida to preempt the British from using it as a base for attacks on the U.S.; the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at preempting renewed European military intervention in the Western Hemisphere; the U.S. launched a preemptive attack on a Spanish fleet in the Philippines in 1898; it intervened in Vietnam to preempt other countries in South Asia from succumbing to Communism. (Donnelly)