NEED A+

Institution

Subject

Name

Date

Policies During the reign of George W. Bush

The retired US President George Bush may have relinquished active politics but he has left a mark in the hearts of many people in the USA and even other countries. During his reign, US was hit by various challenges ranging from economic to security problems and much more. But what stands out on is the 9/11 incident which led to the death of many people and stimulated the US engagement in series of military battles in the Arabian Peninsula.

Situation that required the US diplomatic efforts

In the history of the United States, there are many events that can be remembered. These events have varying degrees of sadness and happiness that they bring to the memories of the people. But what comes on top of the adverse events is the 2001 terrorist activity where the two towers or the World Trade Center was reduced to ashes in a span of time fewer than 10 minutes. Also known as the 9/11 attack; the incident led to the alterations that were destined to change the US diplomatic relations. In the September 11, 2001 attack, thousands of people died from what has been explained as an explosion that resulted from planted explosive in the building. Terrorists were also said to have hijacked a plane which they blew on the second tower to accomplish their destruction. Later on, the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda were believed to have taken part in the destruction of property coupled with the killing, and maiming of innocent people. This made Osama Bin Laden who was then the militant group leader to be the most sought criminal on the planet.

The terrorist activity stimulated or spearheaded the implementation of the interventionist policy that had been existing in the US policies and history. In this doctrinal approach, the US is using the pre-emptive force and the preventive war against the states that have been adjudged to be using autocratic powers in enforcing their authority. This event led to the Bush’s massive mobilization of the US citizens to endorse the war in Iraq that ensued in the later years shortly (Dolan, 2004). The terrorist attack founded the US invasion of Iraq 2002, and this still falls within the realms of diplomatic intervention due to endorsements that it received from the people and US allies.

Presidential Doctrine followed about 9/11

According to Pfiffner (2003), Bush had some impatience in the approval of his actions especially when he reacted to the terrorist attack. Because he was rapid regarding actions, at times he would develop a view that the military was not doing enough. But the nature of the army intervention is that there have to be some elements of conservatism and even conventionalism. As he tried to implement the strategic intervention policy that was deemed suitable for that particular situation; he exhibited anxiety and impatience that would have led to other damages (Pfiffner, 2003).

Dolan (2004) argued that it was not Bush’s edifice to launch the Iraqi invasion but the US policy was framed in such a way that such a situation would only be handled through the deployment of the military forces. The 9/11 aftermath provided the conduit for the US to implement and justify the interventionist policy. There are various reasons that were used to justify and validate the employment of the military intervention. Before the attack, the US national security doctrine was considered to be based on the cold-war ideology. This provided the opportunity to use the authority and show the military capability as a world’s leading superpower. The doctrine of the interventionism was going to allow the US to provide a paradigmatic shift in the handling of the security matters (Dolan, 2004). Even though there are other policies, the interventionist doctrine was the primary one that George W. Bush is famously known to have perfected.

Impacts of the diplomatic efforts on US and other countries

Currently, the US diplomatic doctrine of interventionism has continued to elicit different kinds of reactions. The views that are expressed in the discourses for or against the policies are entirely based on the impacts that the interventionist approach has brought in the US and other countries. Bedford (2011) observed that the US has been running the campaign on the democratization platform to use the military instruments in other nations such Iraq, Afghanistan and much more. However, as some may feel that they are pro the promotion of good democratic governance; there those who have the view that the US may use such opportunities to choose its own ‘point men’ as leaders. These views are averse to the interventionism because it is considered imperialist and another form of dictatorship. This in effect has lowered the reception of the US and its policies amongst other countries.

Another impact of this diplomatic doctrine is that it propagates hostility against the US citizens. For example, many US nationals have been abducted or even killed in the Asian countries by the Islamic militant groups. Some of the grievances that these so-called rogue-groups mentions are that the US is meddling in the affairs of the Arabian countries. Consequently, the US Nationals have limited safety due to the possible vengeance. Countries such as Libya, Egypt, Iraq and other Arabian countries have experienced regime changes due to the interventionist doctrine of the US. Countries like Iraq that were under suppressive leaders have since transformed. Some countries can, therefore, enjoy the civil liberty that citizens initially found inaccessible due to the restrictive cultural dogmas (Bedford, 2011).

Advantages and disadvantages of the doctrine pursued

There are certain merits and demerits that can be associated with the Bush’s interventional doctrine. Since the theory was widely critiqued and deemed to have backfired, there are instances where gains may have been made. According to Arend (2003), this doctrine had legally supportive arguments that could seal the country from any legal suit should cases of committed atrocities by the military emerge. The US was bound by the fact that the doctrine of the preemption was lawful for a country has the jurisdiction of launching self-defense for her citizens. Preemptive force cannot be justified as unlawful and therefore; it was not a significant risk.

As result of the policy, US changed the national security approach to the better particularly in the eradication of the external terror threat. Other countries also benefitted from the regime changes. Nonetheless, there are also other disadvantages that preceded this policy as hostility grew against the US nationals across the globe (Arend, 2003). Military officers were later accused of committing atrocities such as rape and killing the innocent civilians in the Middle East. Such turns of events damaged the reputation of the country and weakened the policy itself.

References

Arend, A. C. (2003) International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force. USA. Spring the Washington Quarterly. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiC8viS6orQAhVKDcAKHQIRA8wQFghLMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2Fhighlight%2F03spring_arend.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEyxC5wYCNAMrIDUP7-DkMBBjbunA&sig2=frC6-Lv5ZFfVoCJt0p8g9A

Bedford, William T. Jr. (2011). The Effect of U.S. Intervention on Political Rights and Civil Liberties .USA. University of Tennessee. Retrieved from: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1419