Lamont Colucci: Today, the Bush doctrine may not be popular – but it will endure
Before George W Bush, the titanic battle in American foreign policy was between so-called realists and liberals. But the Bush doctrine does not fit definitively into either category.
I believe it should be categorised as a "crusading realism" that deals with the moral bankruptcy of realism and the moral cowardice of liberalism. There are four pillars to that doctrine: prevention, pre-emption, primacy and democracy promotion. Pre-emption is nothing new: every state has used it and will continue to use it. It is the least controversial aspect of the four.
The next pillar is prevention and refers to the eradication of a threat that is not immediate: that is, WMD, and al-Qa'ida's attempts to access a nuclear weapon.
The third pillar is primacy, which dictates that if the US is to pursue the other three pillars of the Bush doctrine, it must uphold its status as the world's only superpower. This is also translated into the military strategy which states that the United States must be able to fight multiple wars at the same time.
The most radical and interesting pillar of the Bush doctrine is that of democracy promotion. The key question is: does President Bush really believe in it? In interviewing key administration figures, it became clear that he does. His belief in the universal nature of democratic values is heartfelt. He believes in the "non-negotiable demands of human liberty and human dignity". This returns the US to the natural law of the 17th and 18th centuries.
I would argue that if the Bush doctrine was called the American doctrine, it would be entirely acceptable. The ideals of liberty and democracy are core values in America. If it was repackaged as the American doctrine, it would receive an entirely different reaction.
The possibility that the next American president will go against the Bush doctrine is fantastical...
comments powered by Disqus
Arnold Shcherban - 11/8/2008
has very little to do with moral, ideological issues; it is driven primarily (as it has been proven almost beyond the reasonable doubt in many insightful and scrupulous analytic works) by imperialistic Pan-Americana design (mostly - economic in content) actuated through the direct (or by proxy) military force.
Thus, in terminological sense the author is right (pun is intended) the Bush Doctrine and the American Doctrine are interchangeable.
- Stanford historian uncovers the dark roots of humanitarianism
- Historian hailed for offering a history of the culture wars
- Scholars to set the West straight about "Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad"
- Why Eugene Genovese’s 2 sentences about Vietnam went viral in 1965
- Historians named to the 2015 class of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences