The Bush Doctrine
Renshon, Stanley Allen, and Peter Suedfeld. 2007. Understanding The Bush Doctrine. New York: Routledge.
Renshon and Suedfeld (2007) provide American poll data on the powerful effect of the Bush Doctrine that exploited the attacks of 9/11 to act unilaterally in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. These findings suggest that many Americans were extremely supportive of going to war with Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein had not direct connection with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This method of research provides a way to understand the irrationality of public opinion, which was based on the Bush Doctrine’s massive push for military intervention in a non-terrorist invasion of a sovereign country. These aspects of political “realism” define the large-scale …show more content…
Ward and Josephson (2012) expand upon Dueck’s (2015) realization that Obama may have opposed the Iraq War of 2003, but he has repeated the same unilateral military actions against Libya. Politically, Obama track record defines a massive change in the perceived “anti-war” sentiment that has been identified with President Obama. In fact, the veneer of “anti-war” sentiment has completely vanished due to the pro-active wars in Libya’s destruction in 2001, the current conflict in Syria, and the support of the fascist/right wing government of Kiev in the Ukraine. These alarmingly unilateral aspects of Obama’s first and second presidential terms negate the “anti-war” status he was given in the early 2000s. Ward and Josephson (2012) provide a more updated realization of the continued reliance on the mindset of “realism” as a theoretical approach to understanding American unilateralism and military intervention on a global scale. …show more content…
foreign policy aboard. For instance, Holder and Josephson (2012) define Obama’s original anti-war stance, which got him elected after the unilateral policies of the Bush Administration had discovered to be false due to a lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDS) in Iraq. However, after Obama took office in 2008, he began to adopt the same methods of unilateral war utilized by the Bush Administration. This is part of the “irony” of Obama’s accommodation of anti-war principles, yet the policy of “retrenchment” occurs when he decides to authorize the American bombing of Libya through a unilateral military action. Surely, Obama appears to be a follower of Liberalism, but it is argued in this research paper that he does not actually follow these principles of
Renshon and Suedfeld (2007) provide American poll data on the powerful effect of the Bush Doctrine that exploited the attacks of 9/11 to act unilaterally in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. These findings suggest that many Americans were extremely supportive of going to war with Iraq, even though Saddam Hussein had not direct connection with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. This method of research provides a way to understand the irrationality of public opinion, which was based on the Bush Doctrine’s massive push for military intervention in a non-terrorist invasion of a sovereign country. These aspects of political “realism” define the large-scale …show more content…
Ward and Josephson (2012) expand upon Dueck’s (2015) realization that Obama may have opposed the Iraq War of 2003, but he has repeated the same unilateral military actions against Libya. Politically, Obama track record defines a massive change in the perceived “anti-war” sentiment that has been identified with President Obama. In fact, the veneer of “anti-war” sentiment has completely vanished due to the pro-active wars in Libya’s destruction in 2001, the current conflict in Syria, and the support of the fascist/right wing government of Kiev in the Ukraine. These alarmingly unilateral aspects of Obama’s first and second presidential terms negate the “anti-war” status he was given in the early 2000s. Ward and Josephson (2012) provide a more updated realization of the continued reliance on the mindset of “realism” as a theoretical approach to understanding American unilateralism and military intervention on a global scale. …show more content…
foreign policy aboard. For instance, Holder and Josephson (2012) define Obama’s original anti-war stance, which got him elected after the unilateral policies of the Bush Administration had discovered to be false due to a lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDS) in Iraq. However, after Obama took office in 2008, he began to adopt the same methods of unilateral war utilized by the Bush Administration. This is part of the “irony” of Obama’s accommodation of anti-war principles, yet the policy of “retrenchment” occurs when he decides to authorize the American bombing of Libya through a unilateral military action. Surely, Obama appears to be a follower of Liberalism, but it is argued in this research paper that he does not actually follow these principles of