The Bush Doctrine
The Iraq War may only be the beginning of an ambitious American strategy to confront dangerous regimes and expand democracy in the world.
Following World War II, the United States helped set up international institutions to provide for world security and stability. The United Nations, the World Bank, and International Monetary Fund were started. The United States formed alliances--the most important one was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)--to stop communism. It gave Europe billions of dollars in aid to rebuild. It developed a new policy to check the spread of communism by the Russians and others. The chief author of this policy, diplomat George F. Kennan, called for "firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies." The policy was announced by President Harry S. Truman in 1947. It became known as the Truman Doctrine.
The National Security Strategy
President Bush's actions in Iraq seemingly were based on a new defense strategy document titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America."
1. Pre-emption. The Bush Doctrine downgrades containment and deterrence in favor of pre-emption. This is the idea that in a world of terrorist organizations, dangerous regimes, and weapons of mass destruction, the United States may need to attack first. "We cannot let our enemies strike first," the National Security Strategy document warns.
The National Security Strategy notes that international law allows nations to take pre-emptive action against a nation that presents an imminent threat. It also states that the United States has long followed this policy. Critics agree, but say that the Bush administration is pursuing a policy of preventive war, not pre-emptive war. A pre-emptive war is one against an enemy preparing to strike right away. A preventive war is one against an enemy that will pose a danger in the future. The distinction is important, say the critics, because preventive war is illegal under international law.
2. Act Alone, If Necessary. The Bush Doctrine identifies methods to achieve its aims such as establishing new military bases in the world, developing defense technology, and expanding intelligence gathering. Diplomacy also has a role to play, especially in the "battle for the future of the Muslim world."
The Bush Doctrine favors the United States acting in cooperation with allies and international institutions like the U.N. to deal with threats to world peace. But the security strategy states that the United States "will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary."
3. Extend Freedom. The third major element of the Bush Doctrine is for the United States to "extend the benefits of freedom across the globe" in order to build "a balance of power that favors freedom." The security strategy states that the United States should do this by championing "nonnegotiable demands of human dignity." These include such things as the rule of law, freedom of worship, and respect for women. In addition, the strategy calls for the United States to promote world economic growth through capitalist free markets and free trade.
This is the most idealistic part of the National Security Strategy. It is opposed by critics who consider the policy unrealistic. They point out that it took democracy centuries to take root in Western societies. Societies such as Iraq, which have no democratic tradition, cannot be expected to form democratic institutions quickly. They think the costs of nation building will prove staggering. Other critics think it's wrong for us to impose our way of life, especially our capitalistic system, on other people.
in lang
http://crf-usa.org/Iraqwar_html/iraqwar ... ctrin.html
aus nem interview mit paul bernam
One of the scandals is that we've had millions of people marching through the streets calling for no war in Iraq, but we haven't had millions of people marching in the streets calling for freedom in Iraq. Nobody's marching in the streets on behalf of Kurdish liberties. The interests of the liberal dissidents of Iraq and the Kurdish democrats are in fact also our interests. The more those people prosper, the safer we are. This is a moment in which what should be our ideals -- the ideals of liberal democracy and social solidarity -- are also materially in our interest. Bush has failed to articulate this, and a large part of the left has failed to see this entirely.