EZ Garland
columnist: Emerson Garland

Topic: Foreign Policy
The Bush Doctrine

---

The Bush Doctrine is it feasible. international affairs purposeful

---

by Emerson Garland
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Bush Doctrine: Is it Feasible?

The Bush doctrine is basically defined as the foreign policies of our 43^rd president, George W. Bush. The "Bush Doctrine" arose from the fallout of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Washington D.C., New York City, and Pennsylvania. This doctrine states that the United States has the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorists as the enemy themselves (1.).

Many conflicts, domestic and international, arose from George Bush's newly implemented foreign policy goals. The immediate result of this was the invasion of Afghanistan, who allegedly harbored the Taliban, without total consent from the United Nations. This invasion and doctrine evolved and transformed two areas of the United States perceived status and worldly interpretation. The first evolutionary phase was the role of the United States in a post-Cold War era. Changing from United Nations-backed overseas operations to a foreign policy of preemption. The second transformation is a domestic one and can be seen as the political role that future republican presidents may have to uphold.

This acquired preemptive strategy was used in the recent and continuing conflict with Iraq. Preemption, in this case, can be defined as the United States right and duty to secure domestic tranquility through military means even if the country that is to be reprimanded has committed no violent acts or threats to the well being of the USA.

Although the purposes of these recent Wars remain to be debatable, as are most political issues, one cannot dismiss that one reason for these conflicts was to secure democracy in the Middle East. Presently, we continue to pursue this "Bush Doctrine". It is too soon to declare its success or successes polar opposite, failure, but one can be certain that in this new world of terrorism we, as Americans, will carry the burden of these recent conflicts for generations to come.

Addressing the question of whether or not George Bush's foreign policy is feasible may seem daunting to many Americans. In theoretical thought however, it is a very simple question with all following political ideologies of the United States pointing to "No".

The first sector of life that Americans constantly take part in everyday would be that of capitalism. Yes, our American lifestyle and the greatly appreciated economic system that of the United States is a major definer as to why this "Bush Doctrine" is not feasible. A simple overview of the current price tag our endeavors have accumulated should be enough to thwart and cause many taxpaying Americans to second-guess the marginal benefits of the current Iraqi war. A study from the Milken Institute Review has estimated that the cost of this single engagement will likely sum to more than two trillion dollars. Without delving deeply into economic, international and domestic relations, Americans as a whole cannot pay for this war. Our Federal Reserve borrows two billion dollars a day in the form of bonds from the Chinese government to support our military operations around the world. As our national debt grows exponentially, the Land of the Free cannot support our extremities. We are like an overgrown tree that cannot support its limbs and like this still standing tree with our imperial extremities weighing us down, we have not yet fallen, but the collapse seems inevitable.

The next sectors that many of us Americans do not think about from day to day are the issues of morality, and that of a game plan for extraction and prolonged fiscal or monetary support. Addressing the issue of morality first, I'd like to mention the scenario of what if it was happening to us? Simple yet largely ignored, our entangling alliances over history have betrayed us financially and has destroyed our reputation among the industrialized nations of the world. The "Bush Doctrine" supporters assert that even though we have acquired no weapons of mass destruction, we have overthrown a military dictator known for mass genocide. This may seem an act of heroism for many American citizens but I am sure that the people of Iraq have very mixed feelings towards the United States government. Let us first look into the reasons for intervention and address the questions "Did we accomplish our major reason for invasion?" and "Is there a tentative schedule for withdrawal?" The answer to both questions is also "No". We cannot mud and dilute the water with rationalized excuses when life as a whole is at hand. As many Americans believe our invasion should be blessed and welcomed by the Iraqi people, we overlook that our invasion has caused 3,000 American casualties, 40,000 innocent civilian lives, and countless insurgent deaths totaling to an astronomical number of 1,168,058 (2.). These estimated 40,000 civilians cannot be looked upon as numbers alone. Someone loved every one of those innocent civilians; they were someone's father, mother, husband, and etcetera. So I ask the residents of Los Angeles, "Would you cherish and love the soldiers of the Chinese army after they destroyed your infrastructure, home, or killed a certain loved one? Would you truly embrace their progressive political ideologies while they occupy your land indefinitely? Or would you resent the invaders, unknowingly infecting their seemingly good intent with your newly acquired sense of hatred?"

How is whether or not we have a game plan or tentative schedule for withdrawal relevant to the feasibility of the "Bush Doctrine"? Throughout recent history we have seen reasons for hatred towards Americans as a result from our actions abroad after the conclusion of the Cold War. Failure of withdrawal scheduling, reconstruction of the invaded nation after the area/s is/are stabilized and prolonged presence amongst a foreign country are other reasons for hatred. The CIA has coined the term Blowback to define the unintentional negative consequences that our actions as a nation produce. One example of a prolonged presence can be seen as the Korean War in the 1950's. Believing the common theory of that time period, we felt that it was our duty to stop communism or at least thwart the advancement of. Our theoretical justification at that time was the Domino Effect- if one nation falls to communism then bordering countries would soon follow. Alas we invade this country, which the eventual outcome was that of a stalemate. Now, 58 years later, we continue to have troops stationed in this self-sustainable country. This is not the only instance either; we've had troops stationed in Italy since World War 2. With the Soviet Union dismantled, and the Warsaw Pack obsolete, I can be sure America has overstayed their welcome (3.). In the 1980's Ronald Reagan and Charlie Wilson funded the Afghanis to fight off Soviet Russia. Billions were spent in destructive, war-like devices. Yes, we did achieve our goal of decimating the Russians without the Cold War turning Hot, but as billions were spent for war, a proposed one million dollars for an educational system would not pass resulting in hatred fueled by the failure to comprehend why it seems as if we used and abandoned the Afghani peoples. Misinterpretation and a misunderstanding of how our political system works accomplished everything but desirability (4.). It's easy to see why these past decisions, mostly made before my lifetime, have given us negative and unintended results. Thus further implementing that the "Bush Doctrine" will, by history's lessons, feed the fire of hatred, becoming impossible to designate it as feasible.

The final sector of American civilization also points out the improbability of achievement in today's post Cold War environment. It rests in a glass case at the Lincoln Memorial, a piece of paper that certain names, timeless in history, have contributed knowledge fruitlessly to. This simplistic but interpretative inscription is our constitution, our guidelines for prosperity. The "Bush Doctrine" goes against all of our founding fathers' advice. This idea of preemption, associated with the "Bush Doctrine", defies the restraints placed on our own government. Our government has not declared war since World War 2, yet we have been in about 5 major conflicts since. The doctrine's purpose is to grant more power to the executive branch and does everything but stop and yield to the Constitution.

Ending this rather descriptive essay concerning the feasibility of the "Bush Doctrine" and the consequential feedback that may arise from these foreseeable actions I believe the reader is now well informed of my related viewpoints and hopefully I have opened a door of endless intellectual possibilities for the reader. The "Bush Doctrine", as it stands is not only economically, morally and constitutionally unfeasible but also a slap in the face to everything We as a People stand for. Preemptive War was a gloomy characteristic of Hitler. I would hate to admit that we have adopted his destructive, self-imploding and never-ending interventionist foreign policy. As our sovereign nation progresses through time, as our nation becomes the present day uni-polar leader of the world, the "Bush Doctrine" imposes future surreal threats upon generations to come. This doctrine itself is detrimental to the United States and the promotion of stability abroad, and throughout extensive personal pessimism, I have found that it seems an unfeasible, monumental task to adhere by and uphold.

Works Cited

(1.)FALK, RICHARD. "The New Bush Doctrine". 2002. January 22 2008. .

(2.)BILMES, LINDA and STIGLITZ, JOSEPH E. "Iraq War Will Cost More-than-$2-Trillion". 2006. January 22 2008. .

(3.)EVANHOE, ED. "Korean War Chronological Concise Battle History". 2007. January 22 2008. .

(4.)"Chales Wilson". January 22 2008. .

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
2 thumbs so far

2008 Emerson Garland, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Last modified: Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Emerson Garland only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Emerson Garland is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Emerson Garland of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.