To Lead The World American Strategy After The Bush Doctrine

U.S. national security policy is at a critically important crossroads. The Bush Doctrine of unilateralism, pre-emptive war, and the imposition of democracy by force has proven disastrous. The United States now finds itself vilified abroad, weakened at home, and bogged down in a seemingly endless and unwinnable war. In To Lead the World, Melvyn P. Leffler and Jeffrey W. Legro bring together eleven of America's most esteemed writers and thinkers to offer concrete, historically grounded suggestions for how America can regain its standing in the world and use its power more wisely than it has during the Bush years. Best-selling authors such as David Kennedy, Niall Ferguson, Robert Kagan, Francis Fukuyama, and Samantha Power address such issues as how the US can regain its respect in the world, respond to the biggest threats now facing the country, identify reasonable foreign policy goals, manage the growing debt burden, achieve greater national security, and successfully engage a host of other problems left unsolved and in many cases exacerbated by the Bush Doctrine. Representing a wide range of perspectives, the writers gathered here place the current foreign-policy predicament firmly in the larger context of American and world history and draw upon realistic appraisals of both the strengths and the limits of American power. They argue persuasively that the kind of leadership that made the United States a great--and greatly admired--nation in the past can be revitalized to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Written by prize-winning authors and filled with level-headed, far-sighted, and achievable recommendations, To Lead the World will serve as a primary source of political wisdom in the post-Bush era and will add immeasurably to the policy debates surrounding the 2008 presidential election.

In this volume, leading scholars of U.S. foreign policy, international relations, and political psychology examine one of the most consequential and controversial statements of national security policy in contemporary American history. Unlike other books which focus only on unilateralism or preventive war, Stanley A. Renshon and Peter Suedfeld provide a comprehensive framework with which to analyze the Bush Doctrine by identifying five central and interrelated elements of the doctrine: American pre-eminence assertive realism equivocal alliances selective multilateralism democratic transformation. Given its centrality to American national security, and the fact that the effects of it are likely to be felt well into the twenty-first century, Understanding the Bush Doctrine provides a critically balanced and pointed assessment of the Bush Doctrine and its premises, as well as a fair appraisal of its implications and prospects.

A foreign policy expert “presents a thoughtful, comprehensive case” for the War on Terror—a “historically powerful support of Mr. Bush and his doctrine” (Washington Times). The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shattered the tranquil and prosperous optimism that had blossomed in the United States during the 1990s. President George W. Bush responded with a preemptive Global War on Terror. This controversial strategy led the nation into protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and ignited passionate debate about America’s role in the world. In Defense of the Bush Doctrine offers a vigorous argument for the principles of moral democratic realism that inspired the Bush administration's policy. Conservative columnist Robert G. Kaufman argues that the purpose of American foreign policy is to ensure the integrity and vitality of a free society and that America’s grand strategy must be guided by the cardinal virtue of prudence. Kaufman provides a broad historical context for America’s post-9/11 foreign policy, connecting the Bush Doctrine and other issues, such as how the United States should deal with China, to the deeper tradition of American diplomacy. Drawing from positive lessons as well as cautionary tales from the past, Kaufman concludes that moral democratic realism offers the most prudent framework for expanding the democratic zone of peace and minimizing threats to the United States.

The essays in this volume argue that the Bush Doctrine, as outlined in the September 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, squandered enormous military and economic resources, diminished American power, and undermined America’s moral reputation as a defender of democratic values and human rights. The Bush Doctrine misguidedly assumed that the United States was a superpower, a unique unipolar power that could compel others to accede to its preferences for world order. In reality the United States is a formidable but besieged global power, one of a handful of nations that could influence but certainly not dictate world events. The flawed doctrine has led to failed policies that extend America’s reach beyond its grasp, most painfully evident in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leading scholars and policy analysts from nine countries assess the impact of the Bush Doctrine on world order, explain how the United States reached its current low standing internationally, and propose ways that the country can repair the untold damage wrought by ill-conceived and incompetently executed security and foreign policies. Contributors focus on the principal regions of the world where they have expertise: Asia, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Russia. The contributors agree that future security and foreign policies must be informed by the limitations of U.S. economic, cultural, and military power to shape world order to reflect American interests and values. American power and influence will increase only when the United States binds itself to moral norms, legal strictures, and political accords in cooperation with other like-minded states and peoples.

The presidency of George W. Bush has been widely regarded as having occasioned one of the most dramatic shifts in the history of American foreign policy. The US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, the declaration of a ‘war on terrorism’ and the enunciation of a ‘Bush Doctrine’ of unrivalled military power, ‘regime change’ for ‘rogue states’, and preventive and pre-emptive war together generated unprecedented divisions in the international community. In this edited volume, leading international experts analyze the nature and scale of the global transformation wrought by the Bush foreign policy in three clear parts: part one examines the extent of the Bush administration’s break with prior American foreign policy. in Part two, region and country-specific experts assess the responses to the Bush Doctrine and the interaction of domestic and international politics that shaped these. They explore how governments, political parties, the media and public opinion react to US foreign policy and assess the implications for domestic, regional and international politics. part three examines the likely long-term implications of the Bush Doctrine in relation to a set of major thematic issues including: war and peace; the global economy; human rights and the UN. Providing a balanced and dispassionate assessment of continuity and change in American foreign policy, national/regional responses to it, and the impact of US foreign policy on a set of ‘big picture’ discrete issues, this book is essential reading for scholars and researchers of international relations and contemporary history.

There is no doubt that President George W. Bush and his administration have transformed US foreign policy and reshaped global international relations in a very profound way. Many American commentators continue to talk about 9/11 as the day the world changed, but increasingly analysts around the world are concluding that more important than 9/11 have been the ideas that the Bush leadership brought into office in January 2001. Confronting the Bush Doctrine is the first book to take on the vitally important task of analyzing how the Asia Pacific region sees and evaluates what the United States is doing. With contributions from an outstanding group of scholars, many of whom are based in the region, this book will prove to be an invaluable resource to all students and scholars of American and Asian politics.

Terrorism is perhaps the greatest challenge facing mankind in the twenty-first century. It has been researched, debated, analyzed and contemplated by some of the greatest minds on the planet. And yet no known solution exists. When putting out a fire, while it is important to know what type of fire it is before attempting to put it out, firefighters understand that the key to putting out any fire is to remove its source of oxygen. Likewise, terrorism depends on popular support to sustain itself. Without popular support, the majority of funding, recruits and overall acceptance will disappear. Therefore, the primary goal for eliminating terrorism is to eliminate the sources of popular support. This book argues that this has to be the standard approach and strategy. These pages examine three primary components of contemporary American foreign policy: unilateralism, preemption and military hegemony, as well as how they impact terrorism.

Foreign policy success or failure is often attributed to the role of leadership. This volume explores the relationship between President George W. Bush's leadership, the administration's stated belief in the power of ideas (and the ideas of power) and its approach to the war on terror. Drawing on the international expertise of ten American foreign policy and security specialists, this incisive and timely book combines theoretical perspectives on political leadership with rigorous empirical analysis of selected aspects of the Bush administration's post 9/11 foreign policy. As a result, this book sheds considerable light not just on the limited impact of President Bush's war on terror strategy, but also, more importantly, on why key ideas underpinning the strategy, such as US global primacy and pre-emptive war, largely failed to gel in a globalizing world.

Seminar paper from the year 2005 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: USA, grade: 2,3, Free University of Berlin, language: English, abstract: With the release of the National Security Strategy (NSS) in September 2002, the administration of President George W. Bush developed the ideological keystone for U.S. foreign policy for the beginning of the 21st century. The document is therefore often referred to as the Bush Doctrine. Its publication, and more so, its application in the American foreign policy agenda, has caused tensions among politicians, diplomats and citizens all around the globe. The consequences, however, may be more consequential than just a temporary low in the international political climate. The Bush Doctrine "[...] affirms the legitimacy of an American preventive strike and emphasizes the notion that 'If you are not with us, you are against us.' U.S. foreign policy, therefore, is [...] about shedding the multilateralism favored by the Clinton administration and pursuing a more active, unilateral approach" (Glazov 2002, 1). In the following, I intend to analyze what consequences the U.S. foreign policy issued in the 2002 NSS has on America itself and on the international community in general In particular, I will deal with the definition of prevention and preemption and the Administration's unilateral approach towards global politics. As both friends and enemies evaluate the meaning of the 2002 NSS, it becomes evident that great danger might lie in the ambiguous wording of the Doctrine. The question is now, whether it will prove to be a sound and effective strategy in the War on Terror or continue to disunite America and its allies, if its content is not properly clarified and addressed

In a provocative book about American hegemony, Christopher Layne outlines his belief that U.S. foreign policy has been consistent in its aims for more than sixty years and that the current Bush administration clings to mid-twentieth-century tactics--to no good effect. What should the nation's grand strategy look like for the next several decades? The end of the cold war profoundly and permanently altered the international landscape, yet we have seen no parallel change in the aims and shape of U.S. foreign policy. The Peace of Illusions intervenes in the ongoing debate about American grand strategy and the costs and benefits of "American empire." Layne urges the desirability of a strategy he calls "offshore balancing": rather than wield power to dominate other states, the U.S. government should engage in diplomacy to balance large states against one another. The United States should intervene, Layne asserts, only when another state threatens, regionally or locally, to destroy the established balance. Drawing on extensive archival research, Layne traces the form and aims of U.S. foreign policy since 1940, examining alternatives foregone and identifying the strategic aims of different administrations. His offshore-balancing notion, if put into practice with the goal of extending the "American Century," would be a sea change in current strategy. Layne has much to say about present-day governmental decision making, which he examines from the perspectives of both international relations theory and American diplomatic history.