Bush Doctrine A Pre Emptive Strike example essay topic

1. The author is showing that in the doctrine that President George Bush handed down there are flaws. These flaws may allow the most powerful nation or realm to impose their will as they see fit. 2. According to the Bush doctrine, a rogue state is a regime that brutalizes its own people, seeks to acquire weapons of mass destruction and expresses hatred of the US. 3.

A pre-emptive strike is justified by the Bush administration as a legitimate form of self-defense. In the tradition of international law, a pre-emptive strike can be used when enemy forces are massing or when a "visible" threat appears. As the enemy forces of terrorism are invisible and may strike without warning, the concept of a pre-emptive strike needs to be adapted to the current world conditions. The Bush doctrine claims that the US has the right to mount a pre-emptive strike even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. 4. When the author writes about the partial mis characterization of the likely behavior of the enemy he states that the doctrine is half right.

If terrorist networks were ever to become equipped with weapons of mass destruction, it is almost obvious they would use these weapons against the civil population of the US. However while the doctrine assumes that there are anti-US countries that are stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and that the leaders of these 'rogue states' are insane madmen ready to launch attacks on the US, there is no hard evidence to support this. 5. Under international law evidence of a visible threat or enemy forces massing would allow a pre-emptive strike to come under the banner of self-defense. Conversely under the Bush doctrine a pre-emptive strike may take place even when an attack on the US is not imminent. A strike such as this may be considered an aggressive move or a pre-emptive war.

This is how the line between self-defense and aggression has become hopelessly blurred. 6. The conceptual hole that Manne identifies is whether the US as a world leader has the right to strike against whomever they see as a threat, without a mandate from the United Nations. If this is so does this right exist for other countries or does the Bush doctrine point to a world led by the US. If other countries do have this right will it lead to a world where the powerful impose their will on the weak? 7.

The Bush doctrine may seem that it protects the world from the imminent threat of terrorism but it really only protects the US. There are many reasons why this doctrine paves the way for a US led world where the US and perhaps its allies are supported by the weaker or smaller realms. The doctrine assumes that if an anti-US country such as Iraq was to stockpile weapons of mass destruction, that they would use these weapons in an attack on the US. It does not take into account that these weapons may be used in defend Iraq's own rights from another attacking country.

The doctrine is also hypocritical in that although the US and its major allies are allowed to build weapons capable of mass destruction, smaller countries that may oppose a threat to the US are watched with caution if they train their armed forces. If these armed forces get too big or threatening this may allow the US to strike against these countries as they pose a ' visible' threat to their interests. The doctrine takes away the right for countries other than the US or its partners, to defend their country. The US has used the doctrine to write its own laws and decide who has broken them. It has relieved the United Nations of its powers and allows the US alone to decide who it strikes and why it strikes. This type of power is dangerous as it permits the US to alter the truth, if they need to, to suit their circumstances.

The major problem with the doctrine is that it points to a world where the US decide who is right and who is wrong. It will allow the US to dictate which countries can build weapons and which countries will be destroyed for doing so. Countries can be attacked if the US wants something that they have under the facade of a pre-emptive strike. Countries, which have valuable world resources such as oil and natural gas, and are not aligned with the US, may find themselves the target of what may be considered an unjust war. Even allies of the United States may find themselves under threat if they suddenly become too big for the US to handle. The Bush doctrine is a reasonable response to a dangerous world if you are an American.

If this is not the case being aligned with the US may be the only solution.