Editing Bush Doctrine

{{Short description|Foreign policy principles of U.S. president George W. Bush}}
{{For the|the foreign policy of George W. Bush's predecessor and father|Foreign policy of the George H. W. Bush administration}}
[[File:BUSHPC2.jpg|thumb|280px|right|President Bush making remarks in 2006 during a [[press conference]] in the [[White House Rose Garden|Rose Garden]] about [[Iran]]'s nuclear ambitions and discussing [[North Korea]]'s nuclear test]]
{{George W. Bush series}}
The '''Bush Doctrine''' refers to multiple interrelated [[foreign policy]] principles of the 43rd [[President of the United States]], [[George W. Bush]]. These principles include [[unilateralism]], [[preemptive war]], and [[regime change]].

[[Charles Krauthammer]] first used the phrase in June 2001, to describe the Bush administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the [[Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty|ABM treaty]] and rejecting the [[Kyoto Protocol|Kyoto protocol]]."<ref name="krauthammer2008">{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html  |title=Charlie Gibson's Gaffe |first=Charles |last=Krauthammer |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=September 13, 2008 |access-date=2012-03-31}} According to Charles Krauthammer, who was the first to use it in June 2001, the phrase has had four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency:  firstly, unilateralism, i.e., unilaterally withdrawing from the [[Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty]] and rejecting the [[Kyoto Protocol]]; secondly, after 9-11-2001, the "with us or against us" policy on terror; thirdly, a doctrine of pre-emptive war, e.g., Iraq; and fourthly, the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.</ref> After the [[September 11 attacks]], the phrase described the policy that the U.S. had the right to secure itself against countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups, which was used to justify the 2001 [[United States invasion of Afghanistan|invasion of Afghanistan]].<ref name="krauthammer2008"/><ref name=NYT_Weisman_20020413>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/editorial-observer-president-bush-and-the-middle-east-axis-of-ambiguity.html |title=Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity |first=Steven R. |last=Weisman |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=April 13, 2002}}</ref> The Bush Doctrine became strongly associated with the Bush administration's decision to [[2003 invasion of Iraq|invade Iraq in 2003]].<ref>{{cite news |title=War policy undone by real war; After Iraq, the 'Bush doctrine' has lost its appeal |last=Polman |first=Dick |work=The Philadelphia Inquirer |date=May 23, 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Why the Bush Doctrine is dead |last=White |first=Hugh |work=The Age |location=Melbourne |date=October 3, 2003}}</ref><ref name="OldWorldOrder">{{cite news|title=Old World Order |last=Traub |first=James |work=The New York Times |date=November 12, 2006}}</ref>

Different pundits have attributed different meanings to the Bush Doctrine. It was used to describe specific policy elements, including a strategy of "preemptive strikes" as a defense against an immediate or perceived future threat to the security of the United States. This policy principle was applied particularly in the [[Middle East]] to counter international terrorist organizations and to justify the invasion of [[Ba'athist Iraq|Iraq]].{{Citation needed|date=May 2022}}

Generally, the Bush Doctrine was used to indicate a willingness to unilaterally pursue U.S. economic interests.<ref name=Time_Allen_20070502>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616724,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070504032727/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1616724,00.html |archive-date=May 4, 2007 |title=Edwards Rejects the 'War on Terror' |first=Mike |last=Allen |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|date=May 2, 2007}}</ref><ref name=NationalReview_Levin_20060816>{{cite journal |url=http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQyNjBmZjA2M2IzMDgzYjI1MWJiNTNjZmFjY2M5YzI= |title=...and another thing: First Things First |first=Mark |last=Levin |author-link=Mark Levin |journal=National Review |date=August 16, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081004112734/http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzQyNjBmZjA2M2IzMDgzYjI1MWJiNTNjZmFjY2M5YzI%3D |archive-date=October 4, 2008 }}</ref><ref name=USAtoday_Page_20030317>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/educate/iraq/war7-article.htm |title=Confronting Iraq |first=Susan |last=Page |work=USA Today Education |date=March 17, 2003}}</ref> Some of these policies were codified in a [[United States National Security Council|National Security Council]] text entitled the ''National Security Strategy of the United States'' published on September 20, 2002.<ref name=NSS_September2002>{{cite book|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html |title=The National Security Strategy of the United States |author=National Security Council |publisher=The White House|date=September 2002 |author-link=United States National Security Council}}</ref>

The phrase "Bush Doctrine" was rarely used by members of the Bush administration. The expression was used at least once, though, by [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] [[Dick Cheney]], in a June 2003 speech in which he said, "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the [[Taliban]] in [[Islamic Republic of Afghanistan|Afghanistan]], and of [[Saddam Hussein]]'s regime in Iraq."<ref name="Cheney use of term">[https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/id/28921/ Vice President Tells West Point Cadets "Bush Doctrine" Is Serious], ''American Forces Press Service'', June 2, 2003</ref>

==''National Security Strategy of the United States''==
The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a document, the ''[[National Security Strategy (United States)|National Security Strategy of the United States]]'', published on September 17, 2002.<ref>[http://fs6.depauw.edu:50080/~jeremyanderson/teach/213_2002nssIntro.pdf Introduction - The National Security Strategy 2002]{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes}}, PDF</ref> This document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.<ref name=NYT_Opinion_20030413>{{cite news |last=[[Editorial|Opinion]] |title=Aftermath; The Bush Doctrine |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/opinion/aftermath-the-bush-doctrine-237710.html?sq=%22bush+doctrine%22&scp=4&st=cse |work=The New York Times |date=April 13, 2003| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref><ref name=NYT_Opinion_20020922>{{cite news |last=Opinion |title=The Bush Doctrine |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/the-bush-doctrine-998672.html?sq=bush+doctrine&scp=9&st=cse |work=The New York Times |date=September 22, 2002| access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref><ref name=MotherJones_Gitlin_200301>{{cite journal|last=Gitlin |first=Todd |journal=Mother Jones |title=America's Age of Empire: The Bush Doctrine |url=https://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/01/ma_205_01.html |date=January–February 2003 |access-date=2008-09-12}}</ref> As updated in 2006, it states:<ref name=NSS_March2006_sectionV>{{cite book|chapter-url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/print/sectionV.html|chapter=Summary of National Security Strategy 2002|title=The National Security Strategy of the United States|author=National Security Council|publisher=The White House|date=March 2006}}</ref><ref name=NSS_March2006>{{cite book|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/print/index.html |title=The National Security Strategy of the United States |author=National Security Council |publisher=The White House|date=March 2006 |author-link= United States National Security Council}}</ref>

{{quote|The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.}}

==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.

==Influences on the Bush Doctrine==
===Neoconservatives===
The development of the doctrine was influenced by neoconservative ideology,<ref name="change">{{cite web |url=http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100616020328/http://www.aup.edu/pdf/WPSeries/AUP_wp61-WilliamsSchmidt.pdf |archive-date=June 16, 2010 |title=The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists |first=Brian C. |last=Schmidt |author2=Michael C. Williams |publisher=Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British International Studies Association |location=Cambridge, UK |date=December 17–19, 2007 }}</ref><ref name="PNACSOP" /> and it was considered to be a step from the [[political realism]] of the [[Reagan Doctrine]].<ref name="change" /><ref name="notdead" /> The Reagan Doctrine was considered key to American foreign policy until the end of the Cold War, just before [[Bill Clinton]] became president. The Reagan Doctrine was considered [[Anti-communism|anti-communist]] and in opposition to Soviet global influence, but later spoke of a [[peace dividend]] towards the end of the Cold War with economic benefits of a decrease in [[Military budget of the United States|defense spending]]. The Reagan Doctrine was strongly criticized<ref name="notdead">{{cite news |url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008830 |title=Is the Bush Doctrine Dead? |first=Norman |last=Podhoretz |author-link=Norman Podhoretz |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=August 23, 2006|access-date=2008-09-16}}</ref><ref name="reagananguish">{{cite news |url=https://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20810FB3D5C0C718CDDAC0894DA484D81 |first=Norman |last=Podhoretz |author-link=Norman Podhoretz |title=The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy |work=[[The New York Times Magazine]] |date=May 2, 1982|access-date=2008-09-14}}</ref><ref name="reagandente">{{cite journal |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1985-02-01/first-term-reagan-road-d-tente |title=The First Term: The Reagan Road to Détente |first=Norman |last=Podhoretz |author-link=Norman Podhoretz |journal=[[Foreign Affairs]] |publisher=[[Council on Foreign Relations]]|volume=63 |issue=3 |date=1984 |access-date=2008-09-15|url-access=subscription |doi=10.2307/20042267 |jstor=20042267 }}</ref> by neoconservatives, who also became disgruntled with the outcome of the [[Gulf War]]<ref name="change" /><ref name="PNACSOP" /> and U.S. foreign policy under Clinton,<ref name="PNACSOP" /><ref name="order">{{cite book |first=Stefan|last=Halper|author-link=Stefan Halper|author2=Jonathan Clarke |title=America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order|url=https://archive.org/details/americaaloneneoc00halp|url-access=registration|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|year=2004|isbn=978-0-521-67460-7}}</ref> sparking them to call for change towards global stability<ref name="PNACSOP" /><ref name=Copeland2000>{{cite book|first=Dale C. |last=Copeland|title=The Origins of Major War |url=https://archive.org/details/originsofmajorwa00cope |url-access=registration |location=Ithaca, NY |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]]|year=2000|isbn=0-8014-8757-9}}</ref> through their support for active intervention and the [[democratic peace theory]].<ref name="order" /> Several central persons in the counsel to the Bush administration considered themselves to be neoconservatives or [[Project for the New American Century#Persons associated with the PNAC|strongly support their foreign policy ideas]].<ref name="PNACSOP">{{cite web |url=http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020407145529/http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm |archive-date=2002-04-07 |title=PNAC Statement of Principles |author-link=Elliott Abrams |first=Elliot |last=Abrams |date=1997-06-03 |publisher=[[Project for the New American Century]] |access-date=2008-09-16 |url-status=usurped |display-authors=etal }}</ref><ref name="Boyer">{{cite magazine|first=Peter J. |url=http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/041101fa_fact |title=The Believer: Paul Wolfowitz Defends His War|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|date=November 1, 2004|access-date=2007-06-20|last=Boyer}}</ref><ref name="Cassidy">{{cite magazine |first=John|last=Cassidy|author-link=John Cassidy (journalist) |url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/09/070409fa_fact_cassidy |access-date=2007-05-07 |title=The Next Crusade: Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank |magazine=[[The New Yorker]]
|date=April 9, 2007}}</ref><ref name="Goodman">Cf. [[Amy Goodman]], [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/17/1442215 "Bush Names Iraq War Architect Paul Wolfowitz to Head World Bank"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071115053453/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F03%2F17%2F1442215 |date=2007-11-15 }}, transcript, ''[[Democracy Now!]]'', March 17, 2005, accessed May 17, 2007.</ref><ref name="Warde">Cf. Ibrahim Warde, [http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/spk%2082%20Pages%20016%20to%20022.pdf "Iraq: Looter's License"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080307042733/http://www.spokesmanbooks.com/Spokesman/PDF/spk%2082%20Pages%20016%20to%20022.pdf |date=2008-03-07 }}, 16–22 in ''[http://www.coronetbooks.com/books/a/amer6915.htm America's Gulag]: Full Spectrum Dominance Versus Universal Human Rights'', ed. [[Ken Coates]] (London: Spokesman Books, 2004), {{ISBN|0-85124-691-5}}.</ref><ref name="steigerwald">{{cite news |url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html |title=So, what is a 'neocon'? |first=Bill |last=Steigerwald |work=[[Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]] |date=May 29, 2004 |access-date=2008-09-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215135620/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html |archive-date=February 15, 2009 }}</ref>

Neoconservatives are widely known to long have supported the overthrow of [[Saddam Hussein]] in Iraq, and on January 26, 1998, the [[Project for the New American Century]] (PNAC) sent a public letter to then-President Clinton stating:

{{quote|As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.}}

Among the signatories to PNAC's original statement of Principals is George H. W. Bush's Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and George W. Bush's brother [[Jeb Bush]].<ref name="PNACSOP" />

PNAC member and the chairman of the [[Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee]] (DPBAC), neoconservative Richard Perle, later expressed [[Richard Perle#Iraq policy and Bush criticism|regret over the invasion of Iraq]] and ultimately put the blame for the invasion on Bush.<ref name="neostab">{{cite news |title=Neocons turn on Bush for incompetence over Iraq war |url=https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,,1939471,00.html |work=The Guardian | first=Julian |last=Borger |date=November 4, 2006 |location=London}}</ref>

Other Bush cabinet members who are thought to have adopted neoconservative foreign policy thinking include Cheney and Rice.<ref name="neoconverg" />

The Bush Doctrine, in line with long-standing neoconservative ideas, held that the United States is entangled in a global war of ideas between the western values of freedom on the one hand, and extremism seeking to destroy them on the other; a war of ideology where the U.S. must take responsibility for security and show leadership in the world by actively seeking out the enemies and also change those countries who are supporting enemies.<ref name="kaufmandef" /><ref name="infowaridea" /><ref name="winwter" /><ref name="podhoretzpraise">{{cite journal |url=http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20020904a.html |title=In Praise of the Bush Doctrine |first=Norman |last=Podhoretz |author-link=Norman Podhoretz |journal=Our Jerusalem |date=September 2002 |access-date=2008-09-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080926001712/http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/opinion20020904a.html |archive-date=2008-09-26 }}</ref>

The Bush Doctrine, and neoconservative reasoning, held that containment of the enemy as under the [[realpolitik|''realpolitik'']] of President [[Ronald Reagan]] did not work, and that the enemy of the U.S. must be destroyed preemptively before they attack—using all the United States' available means, resources and influences to do so.<ref name="kaufmandef" /><ref name="infowaridea" /><ref name="winwter" />

On the book ''Winning the War on Terror'' Dr. James Forest of the U.S. Military Academy Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, comments: "While the West faces uncertainties in the struggle against militant Islam's armies of darkness, and while it is true that we do not yet know precisely how it will end, what has become abundantly clear is that the world will succeed in defeating militant Islam because of the West's flexible, democratic institutions and its all-encompassing ideology of freedom."<ref name="winwter" />

===Natan Sharansky===
{{Further|Democratic peace theory}}
Another part of the intellectual underpinning of the Bush Doctrine was the 2004 book ''[[The Case for Democracy]]'', written by Israeli politician and author [[Natan Sharansky]] and Israeli Minister of Economic Affairs in the United States [[Ron Dermer]], which Bush has cited as influential in his thinking.<ref name=Time_Dickerson_20050110>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/bush.readinglist.tm/ |title=What the president reads |first=John F. |last=Dickerson |magazine=Time |date=January 10, 2005}}</ref> The book argues that replacing dictatorships with democratic governments is both morally justified since it leads to greater freedom for the citizens of such countries, and strategically wise, since democratic countries are more peaceful, and breed less terrorism than dictatorial ones.

===Expanding United States influence===
[[Princeton University]] research fellow Dr. Jonathan Monten, in his 2005 ''[[International Security (journal)|International Security]]'' journal article "The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy",<ref name="ispowerstruggle">{{cite journal |title=The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S. Strategy |journal=[[International Security]] |volume=29 |issue=4 |first=Jonathan |last=Monten |pages=112–156 |date=Spring 2005|doi=10.1162/isec.2005.29.4.112 |s2cid=57570914 }}</ref> attributed the Bush administration's activist democracy promotion to two main factors: the expansion of material capabilities, and the presence of a nationalist domestic ideology. He claims that the Bush Doctrine's promotion of democracy abroad was held as vital by the Bush administration to the success of the United States in the "[[war on terror]]". It was also a key objective of the administration's [[grand strategy]] of expanding the political and economic influence of the U.S. internationally. He examines two contending approaches to the long-term promotion of democracy: "''exemplarism''", or leadership by example, and "''vindicationism''", or the direct application of American power, including the use of coercive force. Whereas exemplarism largely prevailed in the 20th century, vindicationism has been the preferred approach of the Bush administration.

==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" />

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]
* [[Clinton Doctrine]]
* [[Foreign policy of the first Donald Trump administration]]
* [[Jus ad bellum|''Jus ad bellum'']]
* [[Monroe Doctrine]]
* [[Truman Doctrine]]
* [[Obama Doctrine]]
* [[Powell Doctrine]]
* [[Reagan Doctrine]]
* ''[[The One Percent Doctrine]]''
* [[United States presidential doctrines]]
* [[War on terror]]
* [[Weinberger Doctrine]]
* [[Wolfowitz Doctrine]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Further reading==
* [[Andrew Bacevich|Bacevich, Andrew J.]] ''The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War'', New York & London, [[Oxford University Press]], 2005. {{ISBN|0-19-517338-4}}
* [[William Bennett|Bennett, William J.]] ''Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism'', New York, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2003. {{ISBN|0-385-50680-5}}
* [[Ira Chernus|Chernus, Ira]] ''Monsters To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin'', Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers, 2006 {{ISBN|1-59451-276-0}}
* {{cite book |last=Dolan |first=Chris J |title=In War We Trust: The Bush Doctrine And The Pursuit Of Just War |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=17wLAAAAYAAJ |publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd |year=2005 |isbn=0-7546-4234-8 |pages=229}}
* {{cite book |last=Dolan |first=Chris J |author2=Betty Glad |title=Striking First: The Preventive War Doctrine and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mQ1pQgAACAAJ&q=Striking+First:+The+Preventive+War+Doctrine+and+the+Reshaping+of+U.S.+Foreign+Policy |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |year=2004 |isbn=1-4039-6548-X |pages=232}}
* [[Thomas Donnelly (writer)|Donnelly, Thomas]] ''The Military We Need: The Defense Requirements of the Bush Doctrine'', Washington, D.C., American Enterprise Institute Press, 2005. {{ISBN|0-8447-4229-5}}
* [[John Lewis Gaddis|Gaddis, John Lewis]] ''Surprise, Security, and the American Experience'', Cambridge, MA, [[Harvard University Press]], 2004. {{ISBN|0-674-01174-0}}
* Grandin, Greg ''Empire's Workshop: Latin America, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism'', New York, Metropolitan Press, 2006. {{ISBN|0-8050-7738-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Hayes |first=Stephen |title=The Brain: Paul Wolfowitz and the Making of the Bush Doctrine |location=New York |publisher=HarperCollins |year=2005 |isbn=0-06-072346-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/cheneyuntoldstor00haye }}
* Kaplan, Lawrence and [[William Kristol]] ''The War over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission'', San Francisco, Encounter Books, 2003. {{ISBN|1-893554-69-4}}
* Kolodziej, Edward A. and Roger E. Kanet (eds.)  ''From Superpower to Besieged Global Power:  Restoring World Order after the Failure of the Bush Doctrine'', Athens, GA, University of Georgia Press, 2008.  {{ISBN|978-0-8203-3074-7}}
* Meiertöns, Heiko. ''The Doctrines of US Security Policy - An Evaluation under International Law'', [[Cambridge University Press]], 2010. {{ISBN|978-0-521-76648-7}}.
* Monten, Jonathan. "The Roots of the Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.s. Strategy" ''International Security'' 29#4 (2005), pp.&nbsp;112–156 [https://www.jstor.org/stable/4137499 in JSTOR]
* Shanahan, Timothy (ed.) ''Philosophy 9/11: Thinking about the War on Terrorism'', Chicago & LaSalle, IL, Open Court, 2005 {{ISBN|0-8126-9582-8}}
* Smith, Grant F. ''Deadly Dogma'', Washington, DC, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2006. {{ISBN|0-9764437-4-0}}
* [[Rodrigue Tremblay|Tremblay, Rodrigue]] ''The New American Empire'', West Conshohocken, PA, Infinity, 2004, {{ISBN|0-7414-1887-8}}
* [[Jacob Weisberg|Weisberg, Jacob]] ''The Bush Tragedy'', [[Random House]], 2008. {{ISBN|978-1-4000-6678-0}}
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]] ''Plan of Attack'', New York, Simon & Schuster, 2004. {{ISBN|0-7432-5547-X}}
* Wright, Steven. ''The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror'', Ithaca Press, 2007 {{ISBN|978-0-86372-321-6}}
* Zoughbie, DE. ''Indecision Points: George W. Bush and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'' (MIT Press, 2014), [https://www.amazon.com/Indecision-Points-Israeli-Palestinian-International-2015-01-16/dp/B01K0TS8SG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=indecision+points&qid=1619371192&sr=8-1]

==External links==
* {{cite book|author=Bush, George W.
|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
|title=The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
|date=September 2002|publisher=The White House}}
* {{cite book|author=Bush, George W.
|url=http://nssarchive.us/?page_id=29
|title=The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
|date=March 2006|publisher=The White House}}
* {{cite web|first=Edward A.|last= Kolodziej
|url=http://www.cgs.uiuc.edu/resources/occasional_papers/bushdoctrine.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.cgs.uiuc.edu/resources/occasional_papers/bushdoctrine.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Getting Beyond the Bush Doctrine |publisher=Center for Global Studies |date=December 2006}}
* {{cite journal|first=Roger |last=Speed |author2=Michael May
|url=http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/9pmqq53321645902/?p=6c87f9990b144762b89212774e97d8fb&pi=11
|title=Dangerous Doctrine |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=March–April 2005|doi=10.2968/061002012|volume=61|pages=38–49|issue=2|url-access=subscription}}
* {{cite web |first=Bryan |last=Long |author2=Chip Pitts |url=http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/war_law_4028.jsp |title=War, Law, and American Democracy |publisher=OpenDemocracy.net |date=October 24, 2006 |access-date=November 14, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091130055637/http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/war_law_4028.jsp |archive-date=November 30, 2009 }}
* {{cite news
|url=http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
|access-date=2008-11-15
|date=March 8, 1992
|title=U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop A One-Superpower World; Pentagon's Document Outlines Ways to Thwart Challenges to Primacy of America
|newspaper=The New York Times
|first=Patrick E.
|last=Tyler
|quote=The document is known in Pentagon parlance as the Defense Planning Guidance, an internal Administration policy statement that is distributed to the military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to instruct them on how to prepare their forces, budgets and strategy for the remainder of the decade. The policy guidance is typically prepared every two years....
|archive-date=2008-10-11
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011043105/http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm
}}
* {{cite journal|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=The National Military Strategy of the United States of America: A Strategy for Today; A Vision for Tomorrow |date=2004 |website=United States Department of Defense}}
* [http://www.adelsoninstitute.org.il/FullArticleViewer.aspx?id=255&member=a  Dissident President]{{Dead link|date=June 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} April 2006

{{War on Terrorism}}
{{Foreign relations of the United States |expanded=DPC}}
{{Presidency of George W. Bush}}
{{Neoconservatism}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Presidency of George W. Bush]]
[[Category:History of the foreign relations of the United States]]
[[Category:2001 in the United States]]
[[Category:2001 in international relations]]
[[Category:Foreign policy doctrines of the United States]]
[[Category:Political terminology of the United States]]
[[Category:Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration|*]]