The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists - Review
I intend to review “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists” by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. The reason for choosing this article for review is simply because of its relevance today throughout the Middle East and how the American foreign policy is drastically changing the dynamics of the world.
Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling fashion.
The previously supported neoconservative project has been fatally wounded through its invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine does in fact “represent an abrupt and unprecedented shift in American foreign policy.” The United States of America had been the most influential nation in the entire world (“land of opportunity”), with its huge military force and dominate economic position, but with this doctrine came a wave of unexpected anti-Americanism.
Schmidt and Williams make reference to Morgenthau and his struggles to “to convince American foreign policy officials of the dangers of conceptualizing the national interest in universalistic moral terms.” I agree with his mind-set that the Iraqi invasion was “national-suicide” and bruised the image of America worldwide. His vision that spreading democracy would result in disaster may have been pessimistic but was completely accurate. American realists were right from the offset; they believed that it was “unnecessary and counterproductive to invade Iraq.” And in hindsight they were extremely correct.
However they failed to “steer America away from the road to war.” If all the evidence was weak, vague, and “baseless” , why did realists fail to persuade the public that the
Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling fashion.
The previously supported neoconservative project has been fatally wounded through its invasion of Iraq. The Bush Doctrine does in fact “represent an abrupt and unprecedented shift in American foreign policy.” The United States of America had been the most influential nation in the entire world (“land of opportunity”), with its huge military force and dominate economic position, but with this doctrine came a wave of unexpected anti-Americanism.
Schmidt and Williams make reference to Morgenthau and his struggles to “to convince American foreign policy officials of the dangers of conceptualizing the national interest in universalistic moral terms.” I agree with his mind-set that the Iraqi invasion was “national-suicide” and bruised the image of America worldwide. His vision that spreading democracy would result in disaster may have been pessimistic but was completely accurate. American realists were right from the offset; they believed that it was “unnecessary and counterproductive to invade Iraq.” And in hindsight they were extremely correct.
However they failed to “steer America away from the road to war.” If all the evidence was weak, vague, and “baseless” , why did realists fail to persuade the public that the