Bush Doctrine

Introduction

Coined by Charles Krauthammer in June 2001, the Bush Doctrine is defined as “a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy.” Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the National Security Strategy of the United States published on September 20, 2002. This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.

Initially, these principles include unilateralism, pre-emptive war, and regime change. After the 9/11 attack, the Doctrine was expanded to include the right of the USA to secure itself against countries that harbour or give aid to terrorist groups.

Usage of the Bush Doctrine

Although the phrase “Bush Doctrine” was rarely used by members of the Bush administration, it was used to justify the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, military action against Al Qaeda camps in North-West Pakistan, and the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Afterwards, any unilateral action of the USA in the Middle East is usually interpreted in terms of the Bush Doctrine.

Components

In his 2010 memoir Decision Points, President Bush stated that his doctrine consisted of four “prongs”, three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following:

1. “Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbour them — and hold both to account.”
2. “Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home.”
3. “Confront threats before they fully materialize.”
4. “Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy’s ideology of repression and fear.”

Thus, the following four points are highlighted as the core of the Bush Doctrine: 1.) Pre-emption, 2.) Military Primacy, 3.) New Multilateralism, and 4.) the Spread of Democracy.

A. Unilateralism

Although unilateral elements were evident early in Bush’s presidency specifically regarding his decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol, unilateralism became a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. Two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush administration regarding how to handle countries such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (the so-called “Axis of Evil” states).

1. Multilateralists: One group led by Secretary of State Colin Powell argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing U.S. foreign policy i.e., to establish a multilateral consensus for action
2. Unilateralists: The opposing view, argued by Vice President Dick Cheney and his colleagues was that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified for democracy and security offered by its position as the sole remaining superpower.

Ultimately, the unilateralists won; the USA now decided to act unilaterally in its security interests, without the approval of international bodies like the United Nations. This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

B. Pre-emption

The Bush Doctrine, and neoconservative reasoning, held that containment of the enemy under the realpolitik of Reagan did not work and that the enemy of the United States must be destroyed pre-emptively before they attack — using all the United States’ available means, resources, and influences to do so.

The September 11 attacks presented a foreign policy challenge since it was not Afghanistan that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of them. Thus to respond to this challenge, the Bush Doctrine included pre-emption.

This policy was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 and has since been applied to American military action against Al Qaeda camps in North-West Pakistan.

C. Democratic Regime Change

The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neo-conservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the Western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other. Maintaining that “The defence of freedom requires the advance of freedom.” the Bush Doctrine advocated establishing democratic governments as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine held that replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism than dictatorial ones.

The Bush Doctrine holds it is the responsibility of the US to protect itself by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.

The Elections in Egypt, Lebanon, and Palestine happened as a result of this initiative in the sense that the Brotherhood, Hezbollah, and Hamas were allowed to participate in it.

Criticism and Analysis

The foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine was subject to controversy both in the United States and internationally.

1. There is no Bush Doctrine: One major criticism is that there is no single document that could explain what it is as there are seven distinct Bush doctrines. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he thought there was no “single piece of paper” that represents the Bush Doctrine.
2. Old Wine in new Bottle: Experts on geopolitical strategy note that Halford Mackinder’s theories in “The Geographical Pivot of History” published in 1904, have already shaped American grand strategy since World War II. Mackinder warned that any single power dominating Eurasia, “the World-Island”, as he called it, would have the potential to dominate the world, including the United States.”
3. Polarization: The Bush Doctrine was polarizing both domestically and internationally. In 2008, polls showed there was more anti-Americanism than before the Bush administration formed the Bush Doctrine; this increase was probably, at least partially, a result of implementing the Bush Doctrine and conservative foreign policy.
4. Against International Law: Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson argued that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs
5. Ineffective Policy: Many experts maintain that a liberal hegemonic policy like the Bush Doctrine is ineffective at achieving its stated end goals and is doomed to lead to more war, anti-Americanism, and a global retreat in democracy. Some critics of the policies were suspicious of the increasing willingness of the United States to use military force unilaterally.
6. Incentive for Others: Others have stated that it could lead to other states resorting to the production of WMDs or terrorist activities. This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the just war theory and would constitute a war of aggression.
7. Selective Application: Some commentators argue that the Bush Doctrine has not aimed to support genuine democratic regimes driven by local peoples, but rather US-friendly regimes installed by diplomats acting on behalf of the United States and intended only to seem democratic to U.S. voters.

(From my book “International Relations: Basic Concepts & Global Issues”, available at Amazon https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08QZSRWT1)