Editing Bush Doctrine (section)

==Criticism and analysis==
The Bush Doctrine resulted in criticism and controversy.<ref name="eubushadm"/><ref name="democrprocess">{{cite news |url=http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/399/ |title=Unity can defeat the Bush doctrine |work=People Weekly World |first=Jarvis |last=Tyner |author-link=Jarvis Tyner |date=January 12, 2002 |access-date=2008-09-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081201211318/http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/399/ |archive-date=December 1, 2008 }}</ref> Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. One of the drafters of the National Security Strategy of the U.S., which is commonly mistakenly referred to as the "Bush Doctrine", demurred at investing the statement with too much weight. "I actually never thought there was a Bush doctrine", said [[Philip Zelikow]], who later served as State Department counselor under Secretary of State Rice. "Indeed, I believe the assertion that there is such a doctrine lends greater coherence to the administration's policies than they deserve." [[Zbigniew Brzezinski]], President [[Jimmy Carter]]'s National Security Advisor, said he thought there was no "single piece of paper" that represents the Bush Doctrine.<ref name="ManyVersions">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/12/ST2008091203408.html |title=Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' |date=September 13, 2008 |first=Michael|last=Abramowitz |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

Experts on geopolitical strategy note that [[Halford Mackinder]]'s theories in "[[The Geographical Pivot of History]]" about the "Heartland" and world resource control are still as valid today as when they were formulated.<ref name="fettweis">{{cite journal |url=http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/00summer/fettweis.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010310000633/http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00summer/fettweis.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=March 10, 2001 |title=Sir Halford Mackinder, Geopolitics, and Policymaking in the 21st Century |journal=Parameters |publisher=U.S. Army War College |volume=XXX |issue=2 |first=Christopher J. |last=Fettweis | author-link = Christopher Fettweis |date=Summer 2000 |access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref><ref name="sempaheart">{{cite journal |url=http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_14/sempa_mac1.html |title=Mackinder's WORLD |first=Francis P. |journal=American Diplomacy |volume=V |issue=1 |last=Sempa |year=2000 |access-date=2008-09-18 |archive-date=2018-10-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181031211712/http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_14/sempa_mac1.html }}</ref><ref name="sempageo">{{cite book |title=Geopolitics |publisher=[[Transaction Publishers]] |first=Francis P. |last=Sempa |date=December 15, 2007|isbn=978-1-4128-0726-5 |oclc=156808348}}</ref>

In his 2007 book ''In the Defense of the Bush Doctrine'',<ref name="kaufmandef">{{cite book |title=In the defense of the Bush Doctrine |publisher=[[University Press of Kentucky]] |year=2007|isbn=978-0-8131-2434-6 |first=Robert G. |last=Kaufman|oclc=224925740}}</ref> Robert G. Kaufman wrote: "No one grasped the logics or implications of this transformation better than Halford Mackinder. His prescient theories, first set forth in ''Geographical Pivot of History'', published in 1904, have rightly shaped American grand strategy since [[World War II]]. Mackinder warned that any single power dominating [[Eurasia]], "the World Island", as he called it, would have the potential to dominate the world, including the United States."<ref name="Kaufman2007_p11-12">{{harvnb|Kaufman|2007|pages=11–12}}</ref> Kaufman is a political scientist, public policy professor and member of The Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee. He said in an interview about the book: "I wrote this book because of my conviction that the Bush Doctrine has a more compelling logic and historical pedigree than people realize."<ref name="kaufmanint">{{cite news |url=http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/stories/2007/kaufman.htm |title=Public Policy Professor Robert G. Kaufman Defends Bush Doctrine in New Book |work=News & Events |publisher=[[Pepperdine University]] |year=2007 |access-date=July 19, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527194457/http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/stories/2007/kaufman.htm |archive-date=2010-05-27 }}</ref>

The Bush Doctrine was polarizing both domestically and internationally.<ref name="polarizer" /> In 2008, polls showed there was more [[anti-Americanism]] than before the Bush administration formed the Bush Doctrine; this increase was probably, at least partially, a result of implementing the Bush Doctrine and conservative foreign policy.<ref name="antiusaei">{{cite journal |url=http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28138/pub_detail.asp |title=Don't Blame George Bush for Anti-Americanism |journal=National Post |location=Canada |date=June 14, 2008 |publisher=Republished by the [[American Enterprise Institute]] |first=David |last=Frum |author-link=David Frum |access-date=2008-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011185440/http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28138/pub_detail.asp |archive-date=2008-10-11 }}</ref><ref name="aaspeulda">{{cite web |url=http://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/papers/speulda.pdf |title=Documenting the Phenomenon of Anti-Americanism |website=The Princeton Project on National Security |first=Nicole |last=Speulda |year=2005 |access-date=2008-09-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080923191232/http://www.princeton.edu/~ppns/papers/speulda.pdf |archive-date=2008-09-23 }}</ref>

===Foreign interventionism===
{{Main|Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration|l1=Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration}}
The foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine was subject to controversy both in the United States and internationally.<ref name="eubushadm" /><ref name="ispowerstruggle" />

[[John Mearsheimer]] argues in his book ''[[The Great Delusion|The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities]]'' that a liberal hegemonic policy like the Bush Doctrine is ineffective at achieving its stated end goals and is doomed to lead to more war, anti-Americanism, and a global retreat in democracy.

Some critics of the policies were suspicious of the increasing willingness of the U.S. to use military force unilaterally.<ref name=ChicagoTribune_Rowley_20020624>{{cite news |url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0624-01.htm |date=June 24, 2002 |work=Chicago Tribune |title=Critics Say Bush Doctrine Might Provoke 1st Strike |first=Storer H. |last=Rowley |access-date=May 23, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070614032610/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0624-01.htm |archive-date=June 14, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://consortiumnews.com/2004/041204.html |title=The Bush Doctrine's Vietnam Paradox|first=Nat |last=Parry |date=April 12, 2004 |publisher=[[Consortium for Independent Journalism]]}}</ref>

[[Robert W. Tucker]] and David C. Hendrickson argued that it reflects a turn away from international law, and marks the end of American legitimacy in foreign affairs.<ref name="ForeignAffairs_Tucker-Hendrickson_200411">{{cite journal|first= Robert W. |last=Tucker |author2=David C. Hendrickson|author-link=Robert W. Tucker |title=The Sources of American Legitimacy |url= http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=339&paper=2025|journal=[[Foreign Affairs]] |volume=83 |issue=6 |date=November–December 2004|pages=18–32|doi=10.2307/20034134 |jstor=20034134 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Others have stated that it could lead to other states resorting to the production of [[Weapon of mass destruction|WMDs]] or terrorist activities.<ref name=Nation_Falk_20020715>{{cite news |first=Richard |last=Falk |author-link=Richard A. Falk|title=The New Bush Doctrine |date=2002-06-27 |url =http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020715/falk |work=[[The Nation]] |access-date=2008-11-26}}</ref>  This doctrine is argued to be contrary to the [[just war theory]] and would constitute a [[war of aggression]].<ref>{{cite journal|first=Neta C. |last=Crawford |title=Just War Theory and the U.S. Counterterror War|journal=Perspectives on Politics|year=2003 |volume=1|pages=5–25 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|doi=10.1017/S1537592703000021|s2cid=15197825 }}</ref><ref name=Parameters_Record_2003>{{cite magazine |first=Jeffrey |last=Record |url=http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/03spring/record.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/03spring/record.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=dead |title=The Bush Doctrine and War with Iraq |pages=4–21|magazine=Parameters |volume=XXXIII |issue=1 |publisher=U.S. Army War College |date=Spring 2003}}</ref> [[Pat Buchanan]] writes that the invasion of Iraq had significant similarities to the 1996 neoconservative policy paper ''[[A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm]]''.<ref name="Buchanan">{{cite journal |first=Patrick J. |last=Buchanan |author-link=Patrick J. Buchanan |url=http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html |title=Whose War? |journal=[[The American Conservative]] |date=March 24, 2003 |access-date=December 23, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105221904/http://amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html |archive-date=January 5, 2009 }}</ref>

Political scientist [[Karen Kwiatkowski]] in 2007 wrote in her article "Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine":

<blockquote>We are killing terrorists in self-defense and for the good of the world, you see. We are taking over foreign countries, setting them up with our favorite puppets "in charge," controlling their economy, their movements, their dress codes, their defensive projects, and their dreams, solely because we love them, and apparently can't live without them.<ref name="makingsense">{{cite web |url=http://archive.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski170.html |title=Making Sense of the Bush Doctrine |first=Karen |last=Kwiatkowski |author-link=Karen Kwiatkowski |website=[[LewRockwell.com]]|date=January 15, 2007|access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref></blockquote>

===Radical departure===
According to Buchanan and others, the Bush Doctrine was a radical departure from former United States foreign policies, and a continuation of the ideological roots of neoconservatism.<ref name="change"/><ref name="neocomeback">{{cite journal |url=http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25086/pub_detail.asp |title=Operation Comeback |first=Joshua |last=Muravchik |author-link=Joshua Muravchik |journal=[[Foreign Policy]] |date=November–December 2006 |format=Republished by the [[American Enterprise Institute]] (AEI) |access-date=2008-09-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080911234347/http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25086/pub_detail.asp |archive-date=2008-09-11 }}</ref><ref name="meyerwpj">{{cite journal |title=America Unlimited: The Radical Sources of the Bush Doctrine |url=http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/wpi/journal/articles/wpj04-1/meyer.htm |first=Karl |last=Meyer |author-link=Karl E. Meyer |publisher=World Policy Institute |journal=[[World Policy Journal]] |date=Spring 2004 |volume=XXI |issue=1 |access-date=2013-07-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904091600/http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/wpi/journal/articles/wpj04-1/meyer.htm |archive-date=2015-09-04 }}</ref><ref name="pat">{{cite book |title=Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency |first=Pat |last=Buchanan |author-link=Patrick J. Buchanan |publisher=[[Thomas Dunne Books]] |isbn=978-0-312-34115-2 |date=August 12, 2004 |oclc=231989002 |url=https://archive.org/details/whererightwentwr00buch }}</ref><ref name="kesler"/><ref name="doctasia">{{cite book |title=Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific |publisher=[[Routledge]] |first=Melvin |last=Gurtov |author2=Peter Van Ness|year=2005 |isbn=0-415-35533-8 |oclc=238751530}}</ref>

Initially, support for the U.S. was high,<ref name="doctasia"/> but by the end of the Bush administration, after seven years of war, anti-Americanism was high and criticism of the Bush Doctrine was widespread;<ref name="doctasia"/><ref name="doctrine2008"/> nonetheless the doctrine still had support among some American political leaders.<ref name="doctrine2008">{{cite journal |url=http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/14/00006/ |title=Declaring Forever War, Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisers who think the Bush Doctrine didn't go nearly far enough |journal=[[The American Conservative]] |first=Michael C. |last=Desch |date=January 14, 2008 |access-date=2008-09-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081025090807/http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/jan/14/00006/ |archive-date=October 25, 2008 }}</ref>

The representation of prominent neoconservatives and their influences on the Bush Doctrine had been highly controversial among the American public.<ref name="notdead"/><ref name="neoconverg">{{cite news |title=The Neoconservative Convergence |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006921 |work=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |first=Charles |last=Krauthammer |author-link=Charles Krauthammer |date=July 21, 2005|access-date=2008-09-19}}</ref><ref name="doctrine2008"/><ref name="neogroove">{{cite news |title=Can the Neocons Get Their Groove Back? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/17/AR2006111701474_pf.html |first=Joshua |last=Muravchik |author-link=Joshua Muravchik |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=November 19, 2006|access-date=2008-09-16}}</ref>

Critics, like [[John Micklethwait]] in the book ''[[The Right Nation]]'', claim that Bush was deceived by neoconservatives into adopting their policies.<ref name="neoconverg"/><ref name="notstupid">{{cite book |title=You're Not Stupid! Get the Truth |publisher= Progressive Press|first=William John |last=Cox |date=June 2004 |isbn=978-0-930852-32-0 |location=Joshua Tree, CA |oclc=238122634}}</ref><ref name="rightnation">{{cite book |title=The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America |publisher=[[Penguin Press]] |first=John |last=Micklethwait |date=May 24, 2004 |isbn=1-59420-020-3 |oclc=186427485 |url=https://archive.org/details/rightnationconse00mick }}</ref>

===Polarization===
Anti-war critics have claimed that the Bush Doctrine was strongly polarizing domestically, had estranged U.S. allies,<ref name="makingsense"/> and belied Bush's stated desire to be a "uniter, not a divider".<ref name="polarizer">{{cite journal |url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/bush_insists_us_is_stronger_si.html |title=Bush Insists U.S. Is Stronger Since He Took Office |journal=[[Roll Call]] |first=Mort |last=Kondracke |author-link=Mort Kondracke |date=February 1, 2008|access-date=2008-08-18}}</ref>

===Compassionate belief and religious influence===
Bush often talked about his belief in [[compassionate conservatism]]<ref name="idecompassionate">{{cite book |title=George W. Bush: Portrait of a Compassionate Conservative |first=Arthur Frederick |last=Ide |publisher=Monument Press |date=November 1, 2000 |isbn=978-0-930383-50-3 |oclc=44803063}}</ref><ref name="weisberg">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/12/BL2008091201471.html?hpid=opinionsbox1|newspaper=The Washington Post|title=What Is the Bush Doctrine, Anyway? |first=Dan |last=Froomkin|date=September 12, 2008}}</ref> and liberty as "God's gift".<ref name="union28jan03"/> In his [[Claremont Institute]] article ''Democracy and the Bush Doctrine'',<ref name="kesler">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.claremont.org/article/democracy-and-the-bush-doctrine/ |title=Democracy and the Bush Doctrine: Exporting compassionate conservatism |first=Charles R. |last=Kesler |author-link=Charles R. Kesler |magazine=The Claremont Review of Books |volume=V |issue=I |date=Winter 2004–2005 |access-date=2008-09-15}}</ref> [[Charles R. Kesler]] writes, "As he begins his second term, the president and his advisors must take a hard, second look at the Bush Doctrine. In many respects, it is the export version of compassionate conservatism."

===Sociopsychological strategy and effects===
There is also criticism on Bush Doctrine practices related to their [[social psychology|sociopsychological]] effects saying they create a [[culture of fear]].<ref name="terrorinvite">{{cite book |title=Invitation to Terror: The Expanding Empire of the Unknown |first=Frank |last=Furedi |author-link=Frank Furedi |publisher=[[Continuum International Publishing Group]] |date=October 30, 2007|isbn=978-0-8264-9957-8 |oclc=156830963}}</ref><ref name="fearculture">{{cite book |title=Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right |first=Frank |last=Furedi |author-link=Frank Furedi |publisher=[[Continuum International Publishing Group]] |date=October 6, 2005|isbn=978-0-8264-8728-5 |oclc=238727258}}</ref><ref name="shockdoctrine">{{cite book |title=The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism |first=Naomi |last=Klein |author-link=Naomi Klein |date=June 24, 2008 |isbn=978-0-312-42799-3 |publisher=[[Picador (imprint)|Picador]] |oclc=182737600 |url=https://archive.org/details/shockdoctriner00unse }}</ref><ref name="fearpolitics">{{cite journal |url=http://nplusonemag.com/politics-fear-part-i-whatever-happened-war-terror |title=The Politics of Fear, Part 1 |first=Alex |last=Gourevitch |journal=[[n+1]] |issue=6 |date=December 2, 2007 |access-date=July 19, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130731072734/http://nplusonemag.com/politics-fear-part-i-whatever-happened-war-terror |archive-date=July 31, 2013 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

[[Naomi Klein]] writes in her book ''[[The Shock Doctrine]]'' about a recurrent metaphor of shock, and she claimed in an interview that the Bush administration continued to exploit a "window of opportunity that opens up in a state of shock", followed by a comforting rationale for the public, as a form of [[social control]].<ref name="naomiinterview">Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/iSP37XQd0Zs Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20130721063412/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSP37XQd0Zs Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSP37XQd0Zs|title=The Shock Doctrine: Naomi Klein on C-SPAN |date=October 8, 2007|publisher=[[C-SPAN]] |work=[[After Words]]|first=Naomi |last=Klein |author-link=Naomi Klein |author2=Franklin Foer |access-date=2008-09-15|author2-link=Franklin Foer }}{{cbignore}}</ref>

===Democratization===
Some commentators argue that the Bush Doctrine has not aimed to support genuine democratic regimes driven by local peoples, but rather U.S.-friendly regimes installed by diplomats acting on behalf of the United States and intended only to seem democratic to American voters.<ref name="Kolhatkar-Ingalls2007">{{cite book |last1=Kolhatkar |first1=S. |last2=Ingalls |first2=J. |year=2007 |title=Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords and the Propaganda of Silence |publisher=Seven Stories Press |isbn=978-1-58322-731-2}}</ref> For example, in the case of Afghanistan, it is argued that [[Parliamentary system|parliamentary democracy]] was downplayed by the U.S. and power concentrated in the hands of [[President of Afghanistan|Afghan president]] [[Hamid Karzai]], a U.S. ally.<ref name=Kolhatkar2007_Ch4>{{harvnb|Kolhatkar|Ingalls|2007|chapter=Chapter 4: A Client "Democracy", pp. 117–166}}</ref> The election of Karzai has been described as the result of manipulation on the parts of the U.S. government and American policy maker [[Zalmay Khalilzad]]. At the same time, these commentators draw attention to the number of unpopular (but U.S.-friendly) warlords achieving "legitimating" positions under United States supervision of the elections. Some commentators interpreted voter turnout figures as evidence of "large-scale fraud".<ref name=NYT_Krugman_20041001>{{cite news|last=Krugman|first=Paul |title=America's lost respect |work=The New York Times |date=October 1, 2004}}</ref> Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls have written, "It remains to be seen if U.S. policymakers will ever allow anything approaching democracy to break out in Afghanistan and interfere with their plans."<ref name=Kolhatkar2007_p166>{{harvnb|Kolhatkar|Ingalls|2007|p=166}}</ref>

Of the elections in Afghanistan, [[Sima Samar]], former Afghan [[Ministry of Women's Affairs (Afghanistan)|minister of Women's Affairs]], stated, "This is not a democracy, it is a rubber stamp. Everything has already been decided by the powerful ones."<ref name="BBC-2002-12">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2039665.stm |title=Tempers Flare At Loya Jirga |publisher=BBC News online |date=June 12, 2002|access-date=July 19, 2013}}</ref>

Most studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the history of the United States exporting democracy. John A. Tures examined 228 cases of U.S. intervention from 1973 to 2005, using data from [[Freedom House]].<ref name="tures">{{cite journal|first=John A.|last=Tures|year=2005|title=Operation Exporting Freedom: The Quest for Democratization via United States Military Operations|journal=The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations|issue=Winter/Spring|pages=97–111|url=http://blogs.shu.edu/projects/diplomacy/archives/09_tures.pdf|access-date=2010-02-04|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100630200643/http://blogs.shu.edu/projects/diplomacy/archives/09_tures.pdf|archive-date=2010-06-30}}.</ref> While in 63 cases a country did become more democratic, in 69 instances the country became less democratic - and the plurality of interventions, 96, caused no change in the country's democracy.<ref name="tures" />