Actually a google search will reveal an earlier use of the label "Bush Doctrine" to describe the policy of the United States after September 11th. Don't know what the final title of this "doctrine" will be or if that capital D will stick. Fred Bauder
"World domination": I put this in because I don't think there is any doubt, even in the language used, that the US is now aiming explicitely for military domination of the world. According to The Guardian:
- Above all, the US will not allow anyone to close the military lead it has established since the Soviet Union collapsed. The document says: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." [1]
-- Tzartzam
Scary - such arrogance
- To be fair, I don't think it's the arrogance of the US state in particular; any state in their position would be similar. But the place for debate is not here. -- Tzartzam
I remove the following material because the link is no good:
- A document prepared by the office of the President which outlines the doctrine entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States" can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.
Now that there is some advocacy of Bush's position within the article it is more balanced; however, restoring balance does not extend to excising the sharp citicism which is also part of the article. User:Fredbauder
Generally it is better to add to talk pages at the bottom:
I took out the references to the New York Times since I think it is better if the only reference is to source documents. The NYT and Guardian comments include interpretations of the Bush Doctrine that may or may not be shared by the Bush Administration or other critics. I could not get to the link that was included, but the white house link worked for me, so I included both. Hopefully one of the two will work.
Let's keep some balance here. "world domination" is clearly a critic's concern, but not a stated part of the policy. The critics view is that if the US can dominate, they will. But that is not clear. Historically, while not perfect, the US has been the best of any country at giving real freedom to the countries that it conquered militarily (Japan, Germany, Philippines, etc.). It is OK to state the critics concern, but not to state that their view is an obvious unstated part of the policy.
You have created an unbalanced article and also removed the link to the wikipedia article on the security strategy itself which contains much more than this. User:Fredbauder However I have to run.
The latest revision retores a great deal of deleted material and deletes material which while it may be an accurate description of the ultimate policy goals of American foreign policy (love of freedom) is out of place in the context of a specific war where our allies are more or less the same mixed bag of saints and sinners. I luckily found an opinion article supportive of the doctrine so including the critical articles is less destructive of a neutral point of view. There is an article National Security Strategy of the United States, poorly written, which could use some help, and which has scope for inclusion of the broader goals of United States policy in many areas. I think this article should be limited to the question of a policy of pre-emptive strikes and critiques thereof, pro and con. User:Fredbauder
- To the extent that I am representative of the critics, "the ultimate policy goals of American foreign policy (love of freedom) should read "(love of freedom for American shareholders)". Just so you know. -- Sam
Can anyone explain why the "Bush Doctrine" is a "doctrine", as opposed to, say, "Some stuff Bush said that one time"? First, "doctrine" seems to imply a good amount of ideological coherence; is it generally accepted that the doctrine at hand is so coherent? Second, does "doctrine" here have negative cannotations? It seems to stir up images in my mind of primitive priests declaring things without any rhyme or reason. But that's probably just me. --Ryguasu
- I think that last comment is a common confusion with dogma; doctrine is simply a course of action, a set of beliefs. -- Sam
- It is common, whenever a President makes a general statement of US foreign policy, to give it the title of "doctrine". Hence there was a "Carter doctrine" that was the name given to what Carter came up with in response to the seizure of hostages in Iran, and there was a "Nixon Doctrine" which was the justification for his phased withdrawal from Vietname. Presidents don't officially call them a doctrine, but they get that title as a matter of course. soulpatch
- Soulpatch, could this description be copied into the list of diplomatic doctrines? It seems a much better explanation than none. --Ryguasu
- That's not a bad idea, but the list of diplomatic doctrines includes some non-US doctrines as well, such as the Brezhnev Doctrine and Sinatra Doctrine of the Soviet Union. I wonder if perhaps US presidential doctrines should be split out from the more general list of diplomatic doctrines. Or perhaps not, but in any case that article does need to be fleshed out more than just being a "list". soulpatch