Talk:Bush Doctrine/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

2006 dispute

I can't quite follow what your beef is. The President introduced a new foreign policy stance in June 2002 with these carefully chosen words: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long". The import of this was clear to any student of US foreign policy -- this was a clear shift in emphasis, as many commentators, especially in European

Also, I don' quite see why you feel it necessary to make the point that the Administration considered the Hussein government a threat. Or course they did, no one could possibly argue otherwise. Others (with good justification, it turns out), might argue that Hussein was not much of a threat, but again, all parties must agree that the Bush Administration clearly viewed his government posed a serious threat. The article makes no claim to the contrary, so where's the dispute? Until you can come up with some specific points in dispute, I will remove the disputed tag from the article. --69.228.92.139 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Old talk, mostly undated or prior to 2002

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

There is some opinion that pre-emptive strikes have long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the Cuban Missile Crisis [2]

Have we always been at war against East Asia, or is this completely backwards? (The linked site is useless, as it demands that I "register" just to read an article. Ff it is intended to provide some kind of reference, I suggest that an alternative be found.) --Brion 05:25 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Links to the New York Times and to Nature do require you to "register"; however, registration consists only of establishing a user name and password; there is no charge or further obligation. I suppose this might be discussed on the mailing list, but I find both sources so useful that the slight inconvenience is worth it. And remember, some of the best publicity Wikipedia ever got was from the NYT.

(It's okay by you that they ask for your name, age, sex, household income, etc just to *read a single article*? Sure, I can lie, but that's not the point. Additionally, children under 13 may not legally register. Doesn't include me, but is that ideal for a reference from an encyclopedia? --Brion)

As to always being at war with East Asia, not the point, but , in fact, suppression of Islamic and Arabic nationalism has been a mainstay of British and American international relations for decades, if not centuries. The Cuban Missile Crisis does seem to fit into Bush's doctrine; Cuba was not at war with the United States, merely trying (abeit in a spectacularly inept way) to defend itself from attack by basing atomic weapons on its territory. The United States engaged in what might be considered acts of war against by blockading the island and boarding and inspecting ships bound for Cuba. This was viewed by the author of the opinion piece as an example of pre-emptive action. I think he was correct. I don't think a principle of international law was thus established, but one might so argue. At any rate it adds some balance to the article which otherwise is just a hatchet job on Bush. User:Fredbauder

Better explain that in the article, then; the United States did not invade Cuba over the issue, and a blockade sounds roughly like the embargo and no-fly zones that have already been imposed on Iraq for some time. So it sounds prety weak as presented... --Brion 20:49 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Of course, it's lame, but still an act of war as would be the no-fly zones if they were not mandated by the UN. I think the real story here is how useful the notion of a pre-emptive strike has been to war opponents (which I am not); some have even compared the doctrine to Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor. User:Fredbauder

I realize I just made some very significant edits to an established article. Here's what motivated me:

My research shows the term "Bush doctrine" has been used to refer to two different but related doctrines -- so let's flesh that out in the article...
A full, clean, and simple summary of the full Bush Doctrine was needed (that is, not just preemption but preemption + unlaterilism + strength w/o challenge + goal of spreading democracy). The Hearst Doctrine detour (now gone after a vote for deletion) was responsible for some of the confusion.
The trajectory of how the doctrine emerged from an quashed Defense Department internal policy guideline to become America's main foreign policy was worth adding (IMHO)
subtitle headers are great and I felt the article has enough beef to justify inserting them -- so I did.

Whenever this kind of major surgery is done, there's cleanup work to be done later. If something looks askance to my fellow policy wonks, please get out your scalpels and bondo...

technopilgrim 23:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I unilaterally removed the following sentencec clause:

...though the doctrine is in accord with the pre-internationalist theories of war, which respect a nation's sovereign rights but attempt to regulate the conduct of armed conflict through the Laws of war.

The problem is there are a lot of pre-internationalist theories of war -- which one(s) is the author thinking about? The Crusades? Clausewitzian war? The framework of European military treaties in place at the outset of WWI? If the author can link to a Wikipedia article describing the theories he has in mind, he should do so (and perhaps that means he has to write an article). Then we can understand what he is trying to say here. technopilgrim 18:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Initial formulation: correction needed

In the first section "Initial formulation: No distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them", it says:

The immediate application of this policy was the invasion of Afghanistan in early October 2001 after the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan refused to hand over al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

But that's not entirely correct. The Taliban demanded evidence before handing out UBL and preferred a hand-over to The Hague or any independent country. Bush completely refused any negotiation of such terms. kaotix

I think the United States did not believe the Taliban conditions were offered in good faith; however I know of no documentation to that effect or any that the Taliban were sincere in requesting evidence. Why don't you try editing the article and we'll see what it looks like. Fred Bauder 23:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, done, maybe this is a little more neutral given the vagueness of information on the subject. kaotix 03:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name of article

This article was incorrectly moved to Bush doctrine, and I have moved it back to Bush Doctrine. The capitalized form is correct because it is consistent with other presidential doctrines: Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, etc. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Both titles are not optimal. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Words "Bush Doctrine" are the words critics use to describe 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. The title of the article shouldn't be a slang word created by critics. The title should be The National Security Strategy of the United States of America' This whole article is teeming with POV stuff like that. --DjSamwise 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the National Security Act of 1947 the President must send to Congress "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". Thus every administration creates its own version of this document. "Slang" is an unnecessarily perjorative term for you to use. More often than not, broad Presidential policy initiative become known by informal names, not by the the names of the underlying documents used to implement those policies -- thus we refer to "Reaganomics", "Wilsonian Diplomacy", "New Deal", etc. This is the power of the English language and you can't fight it. "Bush Doctrine" has 1.4 million google hits -- whether anyone likes it or not, this is the name that has become attached to these policies. --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The name of this policy is clearly called titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America",ot some name that critics gave it, and the article title should represent that. You can still create a section on how it is sometimes referenced as the "Bush Doctrine", but it doesn't belong in the article title. Deckm70 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. It is not a statement of support for the President's foreign policies, but rather, an observation of the fact that "The Bush Doctrine" is not a phrase used by anyone but critics, and as such, is inherently POV. Unlike "doctrines" such as "the Monroe Doctrine," which are universally referred to as such, and thus merit their own articles bearing such a heading, this article does not merit its current, pejorative (even trivializing) title, nor does it merit article status. The content of this article urgently needs to be merged back into a larger article about American foreign policy under the Bush administration. -69.47.186.226 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree. Life is hard! The problem as I see it is that when you call it "Bush Doctrine" you make it sound liek it's the idea of just one guy - and we know how mad individuals are. However when you call it "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" you endow it with the respectability of an entire nation. Neither is a correct NPOV title. The "correct" name is of course the name the government chooses, but of course that carries an implicie POV.

Status of Enemies

Would it be productive to include a section on the legal status of state defined terrorists under the Bush Doctrine. Some has been written on, for example, the contrasting British and American definition of alleged terrorists. For example, if my understanding is correct, the British system recognizes terrorism and similar acts as crimes, and as such there is little ambiguity about the legal status of the accussed. (this has not barred miscarriages of justice, mind you). Whereas since combatants of a rogue state are not of equivalent legal status as those arrested for such crimes, hence the somewhat confusing states of many enemy combatants. L Hamm 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. Remmber that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I think we would be better served, if this were to be included, to refer to the Axis of Evil as described by President George W. Bush. This approach removes bias from the article.

Changes to section on Wolfowitz Doctrine

This posting applies to the [[Bush_Doctrine#Paul_Wolfowitz_and_the_Defense_Planning_Guidance_text_of_1992] section of this article. Please note that I changed the text

initial revision

to

initial "final draft" version

The justification is that the document that was leaked was indeed the "final draft" and was intended for release and processing through the normal channels within the DoD for a Defense Planning Guidance document. Stating that it was the initial revision can construe that the document was still under development and incomplete. This is confusing because the document was re-written which can be legitimately called both a "revision" and a new "version". However, because business terminology in this day and age sets a higher hierarchical value to a "version" than a "revision", I thought that this was more clear. Also, quoting the text "final draft", I believe, made the issue, that it was re-written after it was considered final, more clear.

Please give any feedback on this (especially if you change it again).

Thanks
Daniel Santos 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea...

And I added a link to the article on the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Daniel Santos 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to foreign policy

You may want to include this:

COUNTRIES large and small are rejecting President Bush's foreign policy by intimidation, and are banding together to counter the US superpower.[3]

Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an article on what the "Bush Doctrine" is, is a Kosher place to recruit troops to any side of the argument. PALEASE stay nuetral in your wiki writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias --DjSamwise 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

adding disputed tag

I went ahead and tagged this article. First off, if the article is about a policy the title should be the policy name, not the slang term created by critics.. also in just about every section you can find misnomers and negative wording that disaply a clear bias. Stick to the facts, don't do your own research, use neutral language. This thread needs work. --DjSamwise 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any alternative name in common usage, and I can't help but notice that you don't provide one either. The policy was issued under the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" but as that title does not distinquish it from the NSS documents issued by prior administrations, that name will not do. Note that "Bush Doctrine" has 1.4 million google hits, so the present name is very likely what folks will use when trying to find this information. You have labelled the article as disputed but failed, as above, to provide any concrete improvements, or specific points to dispute. This is not enough reason to consider the page disputed and I am removing the tag. --69.228.92.139 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The name of this policy is called the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America", not what critics named it, the "Bush Doctrine". Deckm70 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Strength beyond Challenge" not policy until 2002

I have removed the sentence claiming the "Strength Beyond Challenge" plank was official US policy since the end of the Cold War. As I understand, the other section of the article has it right when it says that Paul Wolfowitz proposed this as policy but it was rejected by President George H.W. Bush. If someone can find a reliable source to the contrary, please provide it here or in the article & re-instate the sentence --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting spurious "10 point summary" of Bush Doctrine

I removed the nicely formatted 10 point summary of the Bush Doctrine that someone else had already flagged as lacking citations. Is this list a hoax? Take a closer look at some of the items that are said to define the Bush Doctrine: "10.) Active promotion of American economic interests around the world"? There's nothing particularly Bush-like about that -- what President in the last 100 years has not been active in promoting American economic interests abroad???? "3.) International conflicts can be resolved through the use of military force when diplomacy fails"? Again, there's nothing particularly Bush-like about this -- this is just a statement of a political reality that has been recognized for millenia. When smoking the peace pipe fails, out come the war clubs. Nothing novel introduced by the Bush administration in this. "5.) End of the policy of nuclear mutual deterrence". Granted, one might argue that mutually assured destruction plays a relatively less central role in US foreign policy than it has in the past. That doesn't mean the policy is ended, it means that terrorism occupies a relatively higher position in the President's thinking (as it should). Maybe one day a scientist makes a breakthrough and the original "Star Wars" missle defense suddenly becomes viable. Then we might speculate that the Bush administration would, or would not, abandon the MAD policy. In the meantime, the policy is not changed.

The more I read this summary the more I suspect it is a hoax -- and out it goes unless someone can find some support for it. --69.228.92.139 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine Applied to Russia?

I question that the Bush doctrine has been applied to the Russian Federation in the same way that it has been applied to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. One of the final paragraphs of this article implies heavily that it has. Unless proof can be found, I intend to delete the mention of Russia from that section. --MaRoWi 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy statement is straight forward

Here is the link to the policy document issued in 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The statement was updated in March 2006. It is available here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

And yes, both Russia and China are named as states that come under this policy 'watch'. both in fact are designated as being under the aegis of new smaller nuclear weapons also known as tactical nukes, bunker busters, star chars and nature's own. Read the plan, or read someone who has >>

Executive Intelligence Review March 2003

U.S. PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE PLAN

"No longer is the first use of nuclear weapons a taboo. "

In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program. For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

++++++++++++++

Military superiority

The quote's usable, but there's still no adequate definition of military superiority. Is it as complicated as/is it related to Command of the sea or Air superiority? If so, it warrants its own article and a link. If not, expound further on the phrase here. Note: Made similar request in Wikipedia:Requested Articles. MrZaius^talk 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

Speak incomprehensibly and hit someone with a stick.

This is, obviously, a joke, though in some ways accurate. It would be fun to put it in the article, but only if we put it in as a joke. We would also have to make sure it didn't make the article less nuetral. What do you guys think?

This article seems fundametally flawed to me, as "Bush doctrine" is taken as a term that is generally understood. There is no attempt to indicate where the usage of the term comes from, or who uses it, whether it is scholarly or not. Less than half the external links even use the phrase "Bush doctrine" (I added one more, to make a start). Who coined the term? Is it widely used? BobFromBrockley 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No one uses it in a non-pejorative sense, and even as such, it is rarely, if ever, used. The fact that an encyclopedic article bears such a heading is regrettable.

To whoever anonymously suggested inserting the phrase, "Speak incomprehensibly and hit someone with a stick": since when are encyclopedias repositories for "jokes"? Since when is the validity of a statement in an encyclopedia determined by how "fun" it would be to "put it in the article"? If you think making jokes about people is fun, by all means, put those jokes in your own, private writings. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. This article was unnecessary and unencyclopedic from the start; now it is becoming Wikipedia's new sandbox in which for people to try out their "fun" jokes. This is perhaps one of the worst articles in all of Wikipedia, not only in terms of its current content, but also its sheer premise. No rewrite will ever fix such a fundamentally flawed article.

As I am not a dedicated editor, I am not well-versed in the deletion procedures. However, I strongly recommend that this article be deleted, and whatever neutral and purposeful content it contains (if any) be merged back into an appropriate article on the Bush administration's foreign policy. -69.47.186.226 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to links are now much better. But still noone has said anything about the term and its usage. Who coined it? Does Bush use the term, or is it simply a term of abuse? BobFromBrockley 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends of Bush in the United States use this term with admiration, and his opponents use it with scorn, but everyone (with the possible exception of the Administration itself) uses it. The term is here to stay. Like "Truman Doctrine," it was coined by newsmen -- hard to tell by whom precisely, because so many started using it simultaneously. Unfortunately, this coinage took place twice, with two different meanings: (a) Harboring terrorists is the same as terrorizing (late 2001 as a prelude to invading Afghanistan); and (b) The United States has the right to preventatively attack any nation perceived by the president as a potential threat (middle to late 2002 as a prelude to invading Iraq). Meaning (a) is rather pedestrian, while meaning (b) is revolutionary and represents the crossing of the Rubicon, the end of the American republic, the end of international law, etc.

This term is seldom used with meaning (a) any more, as the other meaning is so much more sexy. For better or worse, Dubya will surely be remembered as the patron saint of Preventative War policy in the United States. Paul 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't have any specific references for this but it seems to me the criticism section is missing some key criticism often made. Specifically, the "with us or against us" mentality is seen as simplistic and viewing the world in black and white rather then shades of grey. For many, it's a childish POV and not one for adults. Another criticism is of the apparent idea that supporting the war on terrorism means handing over people to the US without due cause (since Afghanistan had to hand over Osama without evidence of his involvement in terrorism), especially given that these people are apparently not guaranteed a fair trial nor respect for their human rights Nil Einne 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section on this article is pitifully lacking in scholarly sources, and the fact that it has been that way since August 2006 suggests to me that it needs to be removed. The whole thing reads partisan. KansaiKitsune 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a disaster.

It's constantly filled with unsourced, blatantly partisan statements by ip addresses, and it's been allowed to sit in this state for much longer than it should be. Do it right, or delete it. KansaiKitsune 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it requires a complete rewrite. Addhoc 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nazis?

Its detractors claim that the policy... is indistinguishable in practice from the Nazi doctrine of 'Might is Right'

I'm no fan of Bush and his foreign policy, but is that Nazi reference necessary? I mean the term "might is right" itself predates Nazism. - Nick15 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"might makes right" was Bismarck before it was Hitler. It was during the Unification and expansion of the German EmpireSenorquigles 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of "might makes right" was first introduced by "AArgh" in his heated debate with "Ghooba" outside the eastern caves of mount kelimonjoro august 4th 64374BC. history records AArgh winning the argument using the classic 'ad clubium' approach whereupon he feasted on the brains of his opponentWdsdsgrth 08:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror Timeline

The timeline at the bottom of the article starts with the attacks of September 11 but the terrorist attacks on the US started during the Clinton administration, including the USS Cole, the First World Trade Center and various embassy bombings. Although the US didn't reconize the threat at the time, these attacks were the begining of the War on Terror.Senorquigles 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have saved this page. Do not screw with it.

I've destroyed the rampantly partisan accusations of this being a 'Bush-McCain' doctrine. Wikipedia is not a Democratic attack dog. Do not use it as such.

"Critics" of the Bush Doctrine

It seems unnecessarily uninformative to refer to critics of US foreign policy (according to the Bush Doctrine) merely as "critics", since the these US policies are in conflict with the UN Charter — and hence the core of International Law. By using the word "critics" instead of pointing out this fact, might lead readers to believe that there actually exists a real controversy over the legality concerning e.g. "pre-emptive strikes" (read: preventive strikes or anticipatory self-defence) or that the critics represent something other than the vast majority. Article 51 of the UN Charter is very clear that preventive strikes are not legal (see e.g. Malanczuk, P., pp. 311-314, "Akehurt's Modern Introduction to International Law" (7th Ed.)). So instead of saying that "critics" take issue with X, Y, or Z of the Bush Doctrine, say that X, Y, and Z of the Bush Doctrine are incompatible with International Law. That seems to me to be a more accurate and informative representation. PJ 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So much for the moral high ground of Nuremburg and Tokyo (I guess Doenitz was right). The unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation and the toppling of its government (which did not pose a threat to the U.S. or the world community) does not count as aggression? OOPs, sorry, no WMD? The needless deaths of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis (and thousands of Coalition troops)? Maybe those Germans were right after all - it was simply the "revenge of the victors". In this case however, that revenge is a little bittersweet. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This entry appears to either be a copy of, or others have copied from here, various other online references (eg answers.com, reference.com).

The entry contains mostly criticism of the supposed doctrine instead of just the facts. The criticism appears to be centered on anti-Bush rhetoric and innuendo.

I agree. This article needs to be sanitized. -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -Author of Deleted Articles 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanatized... or euthenized. this needs to be pretty much totally wiped out and rewritten from a npov perspective. Thanatosimii 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is clearly biased. It needs to be rewritten from a NPOV perspective. Deckm70 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY. The bias is overwhelming.

NOT JUST BIASED, BUT ALSO FALSE. Not only is the bias overwhelming, it leads to many factual inaccuracies. It is not correct that the U.S. acted unilaterally. This is simply false. There were a huge number of countries that actively supported and participated in the war with Iraq. Perhaps a list of the countries that supported the war should be listed (at the very least). What they really meant was it was not supported by socialist governments in Germany and France. Socialist governments that were since THROWN OUT by their people and replaced with pro-U.S. governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.250.210 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive war or preventive war

The Bush adminstrations speaks about "preemptive war", but the doctrine is about preventive war. The consepts easily get mixed up. Petri Krohn 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"In discussions of this aspect of the Bush Doctine, the terms "preventive war" and "pre-emptive war" are sometimes used interchangeably, although they represent very different strategies. A pre-emptive war occurs when a state believes an attack to be imminent (for example, the enemy is gathering a large number of troops on their border) and launches an attack to get the first strike. A preventive war, on the other hand, occurs when a state launches an attack on another state that is not currently a threat , but may become one at some point in the future. By these definitions the 2003 war in Iraq was waged as a preventive measure." - when the war began, the assertion was that there was indeed a "current threat" and not merely one which "may become one at some point in the future".... by the writers own definition then, saying that the 2003 war was a "preventitive" one rather than a "preemptive" one is wrong. It may have been so in the authors opinion, but the stated doctrine which was being followed was one of preemption, rather than prevention.

Regardless of the definition, the U.S. altered the historical course of its military responses with the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. had never in its history launched a preventive or preemptive war, preferring the moral high ground of only responding with force to an attack upon itself (even in the specious case of the U.S./Mexican War). The shift of political and military power to the presidency which occurred during the Cold War did not disappear as part of the peace dividend. The Korean and Vietnam conflicts had been fought as part of the Cold War international treaty systems (and, since they were not declared wars, were not legally classified as such). This fundamental alteration in control of the military (from the Congress to the presidency) has not seemed to bother the American public (which is not noted for its perception of its own history) very much, but it ought to bother the rest of the world enormously. Does it make any difference that the "facts" and assumptions upon which the Iraq War was launched proved to be specious? It ought to. We used to hang foreign officers for the same thing. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The description in the introduction correctly described the Bush Doctrine's use of preventive war (although it was mislabeled as preemptive war). This is also a controversial doctrine (see February 15, 2003 anti-war protest). Uwmad (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Holland is worried ?

Come on. doesn't anyone read ? There aren't even any links in the article to the policy, until the above comment to this dicussion posted the policy links. And there are all these questions and debates about the policy, how infantile. It so simple. No one is threatened who isn't making threats. How difficult is that. The Dutch have no need to lose sleep. They are a friendly nation with strong ties to the US. No one in the world is concerned about any EU nation. They are productive stable, happy people willing to move into the future peacefully. The Russians aren't so sure they want to join the party. The Chinese remain a question mark. The Koreans have stated their hostility and don't mind showing a bristling threat here and there -- they fire missles at Japan! Do you want to be in that flight path ? Of course every Muslim nation is up for review and many are not very convincing when asked their intent. Is this a tough lesson or is there just some conern that the only place in the world where a tyrant cannot take dictator powers, that being the US where the system assures against it, is looking out for the safety of everyone, including itself? Few grasp this simple tenet, since few rise to the height of real power -- it falls to the strongest, not to use power, but to restrain the use of it. If the US wanted to overrun the world, wouldn't we be all over Mexico? South America? Canada can be taken in an afternoon. Cuba ? Do we really like Castro so much that we don't go into Havana because he says not to? Africa would be a simple take down. Fools expound imperialism using its 4 or 5th definition, overlooking definitions 1 thru 3.

The policy could not be stated more clearly. There will continue to be opposition until the US surrenders to whoever wants us >> gays, mexicans, who ? What you liberals are asking for is that the US destroy its arsenal and send the militia home to momma. Then what? Chant for the rest of the world to follow suit and we all enjoy a Carribean cruise? If there isn't a Disney resort near you, let us know, we will build one where you can live out your fantasy life. The bad guys don't embrace your vision. When they do, we won't see people in prison camps, starving because there is a despotic dictator that thinks he rode into the world on the sun chariot. Kim ILL, and I do mean sick, has only one objective, to stay in power so his daddy will think well of him. He will run those people into the ground of his own oblivion until he finds his big block of granite and stature carved with eternal honor to his name. Look at the Korean pennisula in this view and tell me everything is happy in the magic kingdom.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Here is a look into the darkness (for those who can read)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18249.htm

There is more light in the Africa. You have to go to the Himalyas, the Amazon or the Sahara desert to find so little evidence of civilization. There is more happening in the Australian outback than in North Korea after sun down.

http://www.darksky.org/images/sat.html

A perfect example of the American intellect at work. Unfortunately, they are in Washington too. RM Gillespie (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muscular ?? Not Neutral, showing bias here

No one wants to hear about the MUSCLE. . . this is a subtle bias in viewpoint. There is nothing in the policy that can be construed as even exercising, much less that there is or will be muscle. Here is one example of how the bias spills into the text. The word Empire is carefully disguised in a perfectly accepted usage. But the anology lacks veracity, moreover this point is irrelevant.

This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together

What can be said is this:

The title should state the word offense. For example, Broader definition of DOD includes offense

This topic should be edited ( example follows) The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.

"United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge". This is an update of the deterrance stance held throughout the coldwar, as well as a play on the leverage won which places the US as the dominant military force on the planet. In the words of the President, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

++++++++++++

This is unlike any bygone empire. This is a new world with a new world leader. The world has never known a powerful military restrained in its use becuase it is not at the whim of a single man. This leader has risen to power on the basis of a declaration of human dignity and freedom. The US has won those rights for itself. It had to fight for them with those who oppose those rights. The fight continues, now around the globe because our enemies take aim at us from afar, have refuge in distant lands, yet use our freedoms as their only claim and means to attack -- we do not hold that right as self-evident. We believe we are justified to remove that right from others who vow to hold to it for only one purpose -- killing. This is nothing new to civilization which has long held the standard that much is tolerated until one crosses the line of harm to another and that is where individual choice and liberty become constrained. Nothing new here.

I see pure insanity to imagine that the work of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, Adams and other brillant men is replaced by the ill-will of one cave dweller whose highest virtue is death. Alongside the ideal of 'give me liberty or give me death', voluntary suicide lacks any substance except as the irrational dementia of the insane. Tell me this is not a lunatic speaking: "scores of virgins await you in heaven". This surpasses gullibility. I wonder what the heavenly term would be for 'guess again, pee wee'. That is one circus I want to see -- the looks on the faces of those standing in line to hear their buddies up ahead try to explain that they killed innocent people by willfully vaporizing their own brains and they are waiting to be rewarded with unlimited sex. I can't imagine a more entertaining and hillarious exposition of stupidity. I certainly don't envy the guy whose name gets mentioned repeatedly when asked 'who told you that?'. Its the 'in the name of Allah' part that may become a bit uncomfortable to witness. I may want to scoot out before the final anhilation into oblivion occurs. I wouldn't wish that on even the worst creature here, though it will be enjoyable to see the rat come face to face with reality. I wouldn't miss that curtain call.

economic impact

did the bush doctrine drove US into recession and broke the bank? 9 trillion dollar worth of debt... how much inflation do you need to generate to pay back the interest rate? can bush policy be blame, or is this unavoidable? Akinkhoo (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)