David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Many individuals domestically and internationally who strive for peace and justice are concerned about the new National Security Strategy issued by the George W. Bush Administration in September 2002. 1 William Galston, for example, writes in a recent issue of Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly: A global strategy based on the new Bush doctrine of preemption means the end of the system of international institutions, laws and norms that we have worked to build for more than a half a century. To his credit, Kissinger recognizes this; he labels Bush’s new approach “revolutionary” and declares, “Regime change as a goal for military intervention challenges the international system.” 2 Does the new Bush doctrine end the international legal system? Is the new Bush doctrine making policy declarations that are unprecedented in United States history? While I share many of the concerns critics are expressing about the new national security strategy, I contend that the more serious issue is not the ways in which this strategy represents a departure from those of prior United States presidential administrations but the actual practices of the Bush administration that appeal to this strategy. I will indicate how this new national security strategy does not represent much of a shift in policy, capability, or practice. Instead, this strategy Bush is using the strategy as an enabling device for a disturbing resurgence of United States global imperialism that serves interests that are actually opposed to the political rhetoric of the value of nations aiming for democracy and a market economy. I conclude by commenting on pursuing genuinely democratic values. I suggest that if the United States were truly committed to democratic values, then any military interventions would require the prior consent of the people. Otherwise what the United States refer to as “bringing democracy” to a people will be more like a militarily enforced authoritarianism that too closely resembles old-style exploitive imperialism.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Dieter Janssen (2004). Preventive Defense and Forcible Regime Change: A Normative Assessment. Journal of Military Ethics 3 (2):105-128.
Carlos L. Yordán (2006). America's Quest for Global Hegemony: Offensive Realism, the Bush Doctrine, and the 2003 Iraq War. Theoria 53 (110):125-157.
Carl Cavanagh Hodge (2003). The Port of Mars: The United States and the International Community. Journal of Military Ethics 2 (2):107-121.
Mark Rigstad, The 'Bush Doctrine' as a Hegemonic Discourse Strategy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Douglas Kellner, Preemptive Strikes and the War on Iraq: A Critique of Bush Administration Unilateralism and Militarism.
Gwendolyn Roberts Majette (2011). PPACA and Public Health: Creating a Framework to Focus on Prevention and Wellness and Improve the Public's Health. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39 (3):366-379.
Thomas Peard (2008). Is There a Right of National Defense? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:341-347.
Walden Bello (2007). The Capitalist Conjuncture. International Corporate Responsibility Series 3:1-24.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads14 ( #210,628 of 1,780,773 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #290,888 of 1,780,773 )
How can I increase my downloads?