Editing Bush Doctrine (section)

==Components==
The Bush Doctrine is defined as "a collection of strategy principles, practical policy decisions, and a set of rationales and ideas for guiding United States foreign policy."<ref name="kaufmandef"/> Some of these had reemerged from the 1992 draft [[Wolfowitz Doctrine]], which had been leaked and disavowed by the [[Presidency of George H. W. Bush|first Bush administration]]; [[Paul Wolfowitz]], as [[United States Deputy Secretary of Defense|deputy secretary of defense]], was at the center of the new Bush administration's strategic planning.<ref>[[John Lewis Gaddis]], [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3183557 Grand Strategy of Transformation], p.52, ''[[Foreign Policy]]'', No. 133 (Nov. - Dec., 2002)</ref> Two main pillars are identified for the doctrine: 1.) preemptive strikes against potential enemies and 2.) promoting democratic regime change.<ref name="kaufmandef"/><ref name="pbsdoctrine">{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1000.html |title=The Bush Doctrine |work=[[Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg|Think Tank]]|publisher=PBS |first=Ben J. |last=Wattenberg |author-link=Ben J. Wattenberg |date=July 11, 2002|access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref>

The Bush administration claimed that the U.S. was locked in a [[World war|global war]]; a war of ideology, in which its enemies are bound together by a common [[ideology]] and a common hatred of democracy.<ref name="kaufmandef"/><ref name="kaufmanint"/><ref name="sangeride">{{cite news |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/13/news/image.php |title=News Analysis: 'Islamic fascists'? Bush sees a war of ideology |work=[[International Herald Tribune]] |first=David E. |last=Sanger |author-link=David E. Sanger |date=August 14, 2006|access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref><ref name="brookside">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/24/opinion/war-of-ideology-414611.html |title=War of Ideology |work=The New York Times |date=July 24, 2004|first=David |last=Brooks |author-link=David Brooks (journalist) |access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref><ref name="infowaridea">{{cite web |url=http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=1206 |title=DefenseLink News Transcript: Remarks by Secretary Rumsfeld at the Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pa |author-link=Donald H. Rumsfeld |first=Donald H. |last=Rumsfeld |date=March 27, 2006 |publisher=[[U.S. Department of Defense]] |access-date=2008-09-18}}</ref><ref name="winwter">{{cite book |title=Winning the War on Terror: A Triumph of American Values |publisher=[[iUniverse]] |author=Quist, Colonel B. Wayne and David F. Drake|year=2005 |isbn=978-0-595-35776-5 |oclc=237026706}}</ref>

Out of the ''National Security Strategy'', four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: 1.) Preemption, 2.) Military Primacy, 3.) New Multilateralism, and 4.) the Spread of Democracy.<ref name="USForeignPolicyAgenda_Lieber-Lieber_200212">{{cite journal|author=Lieber, Keir A. and Robert J. Lieber|title=The Bush National Security Strategy|journal=U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda|volume=7|issue=4|publisher=U.S. Department of State|date=December 2002|url=http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm|access-date=2016-02-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081113134434/http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1202/ijpe/pj7-4lieber.htm|archive-date=2008-11-13}}</ref> The document emphasized preemption, stating, "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few", and required "defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders."<ref name=ChicagoTribune>{{cite news|work=Chicago Tribune|title=The Bush Doctrine|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bush-doctrinesep12,0,6804685.story|author=Tribune Staff|date=September 12, 2008|access-date=September 12, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080915013217/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-bush-doctrinesep12,0,6804685.story|archive-date=September 15, 2008}}</ref>

[[United States Secretary of Defense|Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] remarked thus in 2006, in a statement taken to reflect his view of the doctrine's efficacy: "If I were rating, I would say we probably deserve a D or D+ as a country as how well we're doing in the battle of ideas that's taking place. I'm not going to suggest that it's easy, but we have not found the formula as a country."<ref name="infowaridea"/>

In his 2010 memoir ''[[Decision Points]]'', Bush articulates his discrete concept of the Bush Doctrine. He stated that his doctrine consisted of four "prongs", three of them practical, and one idealistic. They are the following: (in his words)
# "Make no distinction between terrorists and the nations that harbor them — and hold both to account."
# "Take the fight to the enemy overseas before they can attack us again here at home."
# "Confront threats before they fully materialize."
# "Advance liberty and hope as an alternative to the enemy's ideology of repression and fear."

===Unilateralism===
Unilateral elements were evident early in Bush's presidency. Krauthammer, who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", deployed "unilateralism", in February 2001 to refer to Bush's increased unilateralism in foreign policy, specifically regarding his decision to [[Abm treaty#US withdrawal|withdraw from the ABM treaty]].<ref name=CNN_Krauthammer_20010305>{{cite news | last=Krauthammer |first=Charles |title=The Bush doctrine: In American foreign policy, a new motto: Don't ask. Tell |url=http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2001/03/05/doctrine.html |publisher=CNN |date=February 26, 2001| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref><ref name=WashingtonPost_Krauthammer_20080912>{{cite news |last=Krauthammer |first=Charles |title=Charlie Gibson's Gaffe |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 12, 2008| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref>

There is some evidence that Bush's willingness for the U.S. to act unilaterally came even earlier. The ''International Journal of Peace Studies'' 2003 article "The Bush administration's image of Europe: From ambivalence to rigidity" states:<ref name="eubushadm">{{cite journal |url=http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David%20and%20Ramel.htm |title=The Bush Administrations's Image of Europe: From Ambivalence to Rigidity |journal=International Journal of Peace Studies |volume=8 |issue=1 |first=Charles-Philippe |last=David |author2=Frédéric Ramel |date=Spring–Summer 2003 |access-date=2008-09-19 |archive-date=2008-07-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704055519/http://www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol8_1/David%20and%20Ramel.htm }}</ref>

{{quote|The [[U.S. Republican Party|Republican Party]]'s platform in the [[U.S. presidential election, 2000|2000 presidential elections]] set the administration's tone on this issue. It called for a dramatic expansion of [[NATO]] not only in [[Eastern Europe]] (with the [[Baltic States]], [[Romania]], [[Bulgaria]] and [[Albania]]) but also, and most significantly, in the [[Middle East]], the [[Caucasus]] and [[Central Asia]]. The purpose is to develop closer cooperation within NATO in dealing with geopolitical problems from the Middle East to [[Eurasia]]. The program therefore takes a broad and rather fuzzy view of Europe.

It would be premature at this stage to say that the Bush administration has had a fundamental change of heart and shed its long-ingrained reflexes in dealing with [[Russia]].

When it comes to the future of Europe, both Americans and Europeans differ on key issues. Those differences seem to point toward three fundamental values which underpin the Bush administration's image of Europe. The first is [[unilateralism]], of which the [[missile shield]] is a particularly telling example. The American position flies in the face of the European approach, which is based on [[ABM treaty|ABM talks]] and [[multilateralism]]. An opposition is taking shape here between the leading European capitals, which want to deal with the matter by judicial means, and the Americans, who want to push ahead and create a [[fait accompli]].}}

===Attacking countries that harbor terrorists===
{{multiple image
   | direction = vertical
   | width     = 220
   | align     =
   | footer    =
   | image1    = President George W. Bush address to the nation and joint session of Congress Sept. 20.jpg
   | alt1      =
   | caption1  =
   | image2    = Bush Addresses Congress 9-20-01.ogg
   | alt2      =
   | caption2  = At a joint session of Congress, Bush pledged to defend the United States against the threat of terrorism. September 20, 2001 (audio only)
   | link2     =
}}
The doctrine was developed more fully as an executive branch response following the September 11 attacks. The attacks presented a foreign policy challenge, since it was not [[Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)|Afghanistan]] that had initiated the attacks, and there was no evidence that they had any foreknowledge of them.<ref name=WorldDefenseReview_Phares_20071130>{{cite journal|url=http://worlddefensereview.com/phares113007.shtml |title=Bin Laden and Future Jihad in Europe|first=Walid |last=Phares|author-link= Walid Phares |journal=World Defense Review|date=November 30, 2007}}</ref> In an address to the nation on the evening of September 11, Bush stated his resolution of the issue by declaring that, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."<ref name=GWB_20010911>{{cite web|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010911-16.html |title=Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation|date= September 11, 2001 |first=George W. |last=Bush|author-link=George W. Bush|publisher=The White House}}</ref> The president made an even more aggressive restatement of this principle in his [[September 2001 George W. Bush speech to a joint session of Congress|September 20, 2001 address]] to a [[Joint session of the United States Congress|joint session of Congress]]:<ref name="congress20sep01">{{cite news |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/print/20010920-8.html |title=Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People |publisher=[[The White House]] |first=George W. |last=Bush |author-link=George W. Bush |date=September 20, 2001|access-date=2008-09-19}}</ref>

{{quote|We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.}}

[[White House Press Secretary]] [[Ari Fleischer]] later wrote in an autobiographical account of that address, "In a speech hailed by the press and by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]], [the President] announced what became known as the 'Bush Doctrine'".<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZZV7BY-sFbIC&q=Taking+heat|title=Taking Heat: The President, the Press, and My Years in the White House|first=Ari|last=Fleischer|date=March 20, 2005|publisher=HarperCollins|isbn=9780060747626|via=Google Books}}</ref> The first published reference after the 9/11 attacks to the terror-fighting doctrine appeared September 30 in an op-ed by political scientist Neal Coates.<ref>{{cite news |last=Coates |first=Neal |title=The Bush Doctrine: New Policy to Ensure Our Safety Must Be Examined |url=http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html |newspaper=Abilene Reporter News |date=September 30, 2001 |access-date=2009-11-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716213046/http://texnews.com/1998/2001/opinion/bush0930.html |archive-date=July 16, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

This policy was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001,<ref name="NYT_Weisman_20020413" /> and has since been applied to U.S. military action against [[al-Qaeda]] camps in [[War in North-West Pakistan#Intensified US. strikes|North-West Pakistan]].{{Citation needed|date=September 2008}}

===Pre-emptive strikes===
Bush addressed cadets at the [[United States Military Academy|U.S. Military Academy]] in [[West Point, New York]] on June 1, 2002, and made clear the role preemptive war would play in the future of American foreign policy and national defense:<ref name="cadets01jun02">{{cite news |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/06/print/20020601-3.html |title=President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point |publisher=[[The White House]] |first=George W. |last=Bush |author-link=George W. Bush |date=June 1, 2002 |access-date=2008-09-19}}</ref>

{{quote|We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long—Our security will require transforming the military you will lead—a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.}}

The stance of the Bush administration was that the harsh measures to spread the democracy worldwide are inevitable and efficacious, in which for instance, liberating Iraq would plant democracy in the area and enable it to flourish in the rest of the Middle East.<ref>Jervis, Robert (Fall, 2003). "Understanding the Bush Doctrine". The Academy of Political Science, ''Political Science Quarterly''</ref>

Two distinct schools of thought arose in the Bush administration regarding how to handle countries such as Iraq, [[Iran–United States relations during the G.W. Bush administration|Iran]], and [[North Korea]] (the so-called "[[axis of evil|Axis of Evil]]"<ref>{{cite news |url=http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/ |publisher=CNN |title=Bush State of the Union address |date=January 29, 2002 |access-date=April 27, 2010 |archive-date=March 23, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100323160521/http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/bush.speech.txt/ }}</ref> states). [[United States Secretary of State|Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] and [[National Security Advisor (United States)|National Security Advisor]] [[Condoleezza Rice]], as well as [[United States Department of State|U.S. Department of State]] specialists, argued for what was essentially the continuation of existing U.S. foreign policy. These policies, developed after the [[Cold War]], sought to establish a [[multilateralism|multilateral]] consensus for action (which would likely take the form of increasingly harsh sanctions against the problem states, summarized as the [[policy of containment]]). The opposing view, argued by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a number of influential [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] policy makers like Wolfowitz and [[Richard Perle]], held that direct and unilateral action was both possible and justified and that the U.S. should embrace the opportunities for democracy and security offered by its position as sole remaining superpower.

===Democratic regime change===
In several speeches between late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of the U.S. foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the nation had to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without approval of international bodies like the [[United Nations]].<ref name=Time_Allen_20070502/><ref name="NationalReview_Levin_20060816" /><ref name="USAtoday_Page_20030317" /> This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of [[Deterrence theory|deterrence]] and [[containment]] under the [[Truman Doctrine]] and post–Cold War philosophies such as the [[Powell Doctrine]] and the [[Clinton Doctrine]].

In his 2003 [[State of the Union|State of the Union Address]], Bush declared:<ref name="union28jan03">{{cite news |url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030128-19.html |title=President Delivers "State of the Union"  |publisher=[[The White House]] |first=George W. |last=Bush |author-link=George W. Bush |date=January 28, 2003|access-date=2008-09-19}}</ref>

{{quote|Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity.}}

After his second inauguration, in a January 2006 speech at the [[National Defense University (Washington, D.C.)|National Defense University]], Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."

[[Neoconservatism|Neoconservatives]] and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and the United States particularly exists not because of actions perpetrated by the U.S., but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.<ref name="kaufmandef"/><ref name="infowaridea"/> The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of the U.S. use terrorism as a war of ideology against the nation. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself by [[Democracy promotion by the United States|promoting democracy]] where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.<ref name="kaufmandef"/><ref name="infowaridea"/> Elections in [[Egypt]], [[Lebanon]], and [[Palestine]] happened as a result of this initiative in the sense that the [[Muslim Brotherhood]], [[Hezbollah]], and [[Hamas]] were allowed to participate in it.