The Bush Doctrine

A Lesson in the Arrogance of Power

In a detailed, 31-page document, titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” President Bush officially laid to rest post-World War II strategic concepts and doctrines, and initiated a dramatic revision of US national security policy that is unparalleled in half a century. The report is the first Bush issued under a 1986 law requiring the president to present Congress with an annual strategic assessment.²

In historical retrospect, every US administration since World War II focused on two main strategies: “a realist policy organized around containment, deterrence and maintaining a global balance of power; and a more liberal, internationalist policy based on constructing a set of multilateral institutions and alliances to promote free trade, open economies and democratic values.”³

Instead, the new Bush doctrine abandons both strategies at the same time and grants the US a unilateral, messianic, imperial role in world politics and adopts a doctrine of preemption against potential threats and adversaries. In other words, the notions found in the report “form a neoimperial vision in which the United States arrogates to itself the global role of setting standards, determining threats, using force, and meting out justice.”⁴

Unilateral Messianism

With the end of the Cold War, the notion of multilateralism and collective security became a cornerstone of US foreign policy. This was clearly manifested in American alliance-building efforts that preceded the 1991 Gulf War, and the necessity that states join in an international coalition against any state deemed a threat to international stability. The end of the Cold War also raised hopes that the role of the United Nations would be augmented and allowed to thrive in pursuing international justice.⁵

On the contrary, the new Bush doctrine tends to belittle the importance of multilateralism and discredit collective security, suggesting that “while the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively.”⁶

Thus, rather than working with the “international community,” the US can, at its own discretion, work independently of it. 

Moreover, the new strategy begins with a fundamental commitment to maintaining a unipolar world in which the US should reign unchallenged. After mentioning some common interests between the US and other great powers, the Bush doctrine stipulates that the US “will strongly resist aggression from other great powers – even as we welcome their peaceful pursuit of prosperity, trade, and cultural advancement.”⁷ The report illustrates vividly the concept of Manifest Destiny, the notion that the US was ordained to assume a leading role in world affairs as a result of its unique position of power:

The United States possesses unprecedented – and unequaled – strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom.⁸

In addition, the doctrine is fraught with references that illustrate President Bush’s belief in historical determinism, discrediting other developmental models and insisting that the American model represents the “single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.”⁹

The new doctrine insists that every nation’s strategic importance is not derived from its geopolitical position or its political and economic status in the international hierarchy of states, but rather from its ability to adhere to the American model of progress or its ability to undertake the responsibilities set forth by President Bush in his so-called “war on terrorism”:

Chinese leaders are discovering that economic freedom is the only source of national wealth. In time, they will find that social and political freedom is the only source of national greatness… the United States is guided by the conviction that all nations have important responsibilities. Nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror. Nations that depend on international stability must help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.¹⁰ [Italics added]

The Bush Doctrine and the Muslim World

The Bush doctrine signifies the beginning of a dangerous chapter in the relationship between the US and the Muslim world. In comparison to other regions, the Muslim world seemed to have occupied top priority for the Bush administration. The report was colored by the thinking of US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who has spoken in the past of America’s “imperial but not imperialist” responsibilities in the world.¹¹ She has also argued for the necessity of the so-called “march of freedom in the Muslim world.”¹²

In addition, right-wing power players such as both Rumsfeld and Cheney had a critical role in shaping the general policies of the Bush administration. They are mainly radical conservatives with close ties to Jewish neoconservatives, the Likud Party in Israel, and leaders of the Christian right.¹³

The report contains many clauses that indicate the new American administration’s intention of restructuring the future of the Muslim world and supporting passive or so-called “moderate” and “modern” forces that work for US interests. The Bush administration does not seem to grasp the complexity of US-Islamic relationships, nor does it acknowledge the injustices that were created by US foreign policy over the decades. Rather than seeking to address Muslim grievances, President Bush blames the Muslim world for not conforming to American ideals, and seeks to manipulate forces within the Muslim world for his own purposes. The Bush doctrine suggests that:

The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations. It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world. This is a struggle of ideas and this is an area where America must excel… We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism… This includes supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world.”¹⁴ [Italics added]

Concepts such as “martyrdom” and “jihad” – integral parts of the Islamic belief system – are rebuked in the new doctrine. Rather than seeking to solve the tensions that lead many Muslim youth to sacrifice their lives, the report criticized those “so-called soldiers [who] seek martyrdom in death.”¹⁵

In reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, all previous agreements between both sides, UN resolutions, and the concept of “land for peace,” were totally ignored. The report simply legitimizes Israel’s formula: “security for peace” and makes the establishment of a Palestinian state conditional on meeting a list of Israeli requirements: “If Palestinians embrace democracy, and the rule of law, confront corruption, and firmly reject terror, they can count on American support for the creation of a Palestinian state.”¹⁶

As for Israeli obligations, the report simply calls upon Israel to withdraw to positions held prior to September 28th, 2000, and stop building new settlements, but only after there is progress towards “security.” The importance of Palestine is only viewed from the Zionist prism, stemming from “America’s close relationship with the state of Israel… and because of that region’s importance to the global priorities of the United States.”¹⁷ Israeli occupation is not seen as a crime in its own right, but rather because it “threatens Israel’s identity and democracy.”¹⁸

The new Bush doctrine is bound to bring the clash of civilizations closer to materialization in the near future. It has made many Islamic societies demonized and loathed in the West, and especially in the United States. Iraq, Palestine, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria, are all countries directly targeted for some form of regime or societal change under the new strategy. In addition, most of the wars going on around the world today involve some Muslim population seeking independence, on one hand, and the US and/or one of its allies on the other. This is true from Chechnya in Russia, through Israeli-occupied Palestine to the Basilan Island in the Philippines, where local troops and American special forces are chasing a couple of hundred Islamic guerrillas.¹⁹

The Consequences

Wars are major events that lead to the transformation of international politics.²⁰ Certainly, America’s so-called “war against terrorism” has resulted in major conceptual and strategic changes in international relations. However, what the newly released Bush doctrine failed to grasp are some of the more important lessons of September 11. A key surprise of that event was that the “impregnability of the American territory was a myth and that massive military spending was not enough to shelter the nation from its enemies.”²¹

The Bush doctrine, nevertheless, pushes for a heightened American militarism worldwide and calls for an increase in defensive capabilities to even higher levels. Spending more money on the tools and approaches that did not work on September 11 is certainly a surprise.²²

Another lesson that the US must learn is that the most important aspect of public diplomacy (propaganda to win over the hearts and minds of reluctant Muslims) is public perception. Propaganda will not persuade populations in reluctant countries to support war, as long as Western motivations are seen as being imperial or self-interested. Post-September 11 public diplomacy has failed to deliver information convincingly, since there is no attempt to engage in dialogue or listen.²³ Successful “public diplomacy – should be about building relationships, starting from understanding other countries’ needs, cultures, and peoples and then looking for areas to make common cause.”²⁴

The current US administration has demonstrated that it values coercion above everything else, and hence people in the Islamic world will never be responsive to messages emanating from the American propaganda machinery. On the contrary, they will legitimately feel that they are targeted as potential terrorists, as opposed to reasonable individuals.²⁵ This would definitely lead to a popular backlash in the Muslim world that, on the long run, would not be favorable to the US.

In addition, the doctrine of preemptive action poses a significant problem. Once the US has legitimized such a concept, nothing will stop other countries from doing the same. Israel already has a long history of preemptive attacks against Arab states from the 1967 war to the 1981 bombing of the Osiraq reactor in Iraq. The new Bush doctrine will give Israel a free hand in applying preemptive action, anytime, anywhere, at its own discretion. Other states such as India, Pakistan, Iran, China or Russia could also be tempted to attack their adversaries without restraint. This would definitely usher in an era of unprecedented chaos and hostility, where every state would take the law in its own hands.

Finally, the new Bush doctrine is dangerous for the US itself. Once the most powerful country in the world starts to assume coercive unilateral control, unconstrained by rules or norms of legitimacy, it risks a backlash from other great powers who would, at some point, rise up against the dominant power and work to restructure the system on more equal terms.²⁶ Moreover, the classic problem of imperial overstretch comes into mind, where the costs and obligations become too high for the US to maintain its unilateral military and economic hegemony throughout the world.²⁷ In other words, the US would have then “spread itself too thin.”

Kareem M. Kamel, PhD, is an Egyptian analyst based in Cairo, Egypt. He holds an MA in International Relations from the American University in Cairo and a PhD in Political Science from the American University of London. He is currently an Assistant Professor at the American University in Cairo and specializes in the politics of Islam and the Middle East, international relations, and foreign policy analysis.

1- John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign Affairs(September/October 2002)

2- Karen De Young and Mike Allen, “Bush Shifts Strategy from Deterrence to Dominance,” Washington Post September 21st, 2002: A01.

3- Jim Lobe, “US and the Triumph of Unilateralism,” Asia Times

4- John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign Affairs(September/October 2002)

5- Bruce Russett and James S. Sutterlin, “The U.N. in a New World Order,” in International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (New York: HarperCollins, 1992): 102-11.

6- “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” The White House

7- Ibid.

8- Ibid.

9- Ibid.

10- Ibid.

11- Peter Beaumont, “Worldview: Now for the Bush Doctrine,” Buzzle.comSeptember 22nd, 2002

12- James Harding and Richard Wolffe, “US Will Rebuild Iraq as a Democracy,” Financial Times September 23rd, 2002.

13- Jim Lobe, “US and the Triumph of Unilateralism,” Asia TimesSeptember 10th, 2002

14- “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” The White House

15- Ibid.

16- Ibid.

17- Ibid.

18- Ibid.

19- Richard Gwyn, “A Dangerous Clash of Cultures,” The Star.comSeptember 10th, 2002

20- Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

21- Moises Na’im, “Seven Surprises on the First Anniversary of September 11th,” Foreign Policy(September/October 2002)

22- Ibid.

23- Mark Leonard, “Diplomacy By Other Means,” Foreign Policy (September/October 2002)

24- Ibid.

25- Ibid.

26- John Ikenberry, “America’s Imperial Ambition,” Foreign Affairs(September/October 2002)

27- Ibid.