The Bush Doctrine
2/19/2013
The Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe different ideas related to US foreign policy that the US held in the Bush’s administration. In the doctrine, it states America has a right to attack or go to war with any country that is a potential threat before the threat can do grave damage. It also describes that if any country harbor or supports terrorism, they will be treated as terrorists. The Bush Doctrine was the new American security strategy to prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from developing, acquiring, or using weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush Doctrine resulted in criticism and controversy. Opponents had two main reasons for objecting the doctrine. The first reason was there was not a universal definition of terrorism. The second reason was a global war on terrorism was not a traditional war. It did not have a clear beginning or end, so this makes the war inappropriate. Critics also stated that the world would view America as trying to expand their power rather than protecting our homeland.
Proponents believed that the president only had a few alternatives for fighting the war on terrorism. They also concluded that we could not use the same techniques that we used to fight the Cold War. They believed that we must go after terrorism and eliminate their training facilities.
Both opponents and proponents disagree on different segments of the Bush Doctrine but, they have to agree on one thing. This was the most radical change in the US foreign policy in over 50
The Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe different ideas related to US foreign policy that the US held in the Bush’s administration. In the doctrine, it states America has a right to attack or go to war with any country that is a potential threat before the threat can do grave damage. It also describes that if any country harbor or supports terrorism, they will be treated as terrorists. The Bush Doctrine was the new American security strategy to prevent terrorists and dangerous regimes from developing, acquiring, or using weapons of mass destruction.
The Bush Doctrine resulted in criticism and controversy. Opponents had two main reasons for objecting the doctrine. The first reason was there was not a universal definition of terrorism. The second reason was a global war on terrorism was not a traditional war. It did not have a clear beginning or end, so this makes the war inappropriate. Critics also stated that the world would view America as trying to expand their power rather than protecting our homeland.
Proponents believed that the president only had a few alternatives for fighting the war on terrorism. They also concluded that we could not use the same techniques that we used to fight the Cold War. They believed that we must go after terrorism and eliminate their training facilities.
Both opponents and proponents disagree on different segments of the Bush Doctrine but, they have to agree on one thing. This was the most radical change in the US foreign policy in over 50