The United States Presidential Doctrine and Foreign Policy Evolution to Meet Changes in the Global Environment. Not all previous presidents of the United States (US) are associated with presidential doctrine. Twelve US Presidents and a few political officials are associated with presidential doctrine. Presidential doctrine is not law but provides a picture of how an administration reacts to challenging political situations (Gordon, 2017). Presidential doctrine is the framework that guides foreign policy, shapes military commanders efforts, and communicates the US intentions and priorities to the American people and the world. The 21st-century global environment is more complex and faster evolving than it was in the 19th and 20th-centuries, …show more content…
The most prevalent threat is now the possibility of terrorist attacks against civilians within the US and abroad by non-state actors bound together by anti-American ideologies. Containment and deterrence are no longer relevant in US military and political strategy. The new defense document titled “The National Security Strategy (NSS) of the US” released after the 2001 attacks became known as the Bush Doctrine, named after the then President of the United Stated George W. Bush (Constitutional rights foundation, 2010). Two main points of the new document highlighted the US ability to conduct preemptive strikes, and act unilaterally if necessary. The US willingness to pursue preemptive strikes rose challenge. Critics proposed the Bush Doctrine indicated the US was willing to conduct attacks to prevent danger in the future, which is illegal and compared to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor Hawaii in 1941. Whereas attacking an enemy who is preparing to strike is considered justified. The Bush administration argued the possibility of enemies acquiring weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear, biological, and chemical is too great, and the US cannot afford an only attack if attacked first or when an attack is eminent policy. The new document highlights the
The Roosevelt Corollary greatly affected American foreign policy. It was in sharp contrast to the Monroe Doctrine, put in place to stop foreign intervention with the American continents. In 1823 President Monroe implemented US policy that stated European powers were not allowed to colonize or interfere with the newly budding United States or the Americas. In 1904 President Roosevelt expanded upon this policy in response to European intervention with Latin America. This policy became known as the Roosevelt Corollary. The document echoed the style of leadership President Roosevelt became synonymous with. This more aggressive form of policy became known as Big Stick Diplomacy. Foreign policy in the United States would forever be changed by President Roosevelt’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Document. The Roosevelt Corollary would later go on to affect decisions the United States made in regards to the Cold War, Cuba, The Middle East and many more. To understand the impact of this, we must look back to the Monroe Doctrine.
The Monroe Doctrine reflected the concerns and ambitions of a fledgling nation that was brave enough to declare its sovereignty on the world stage. The Doctrine, in stating that European powers ought not to intervene in America’s affairs, established the US as a world power, although one that had inadequate, hemispheric aspirations. However, these aspirations would extend, and in future years the Doctrine would substantiate its usefulness for interventionists, as well as protectionists. Being conceivably the most distinguishable and the most revered as regards principles of diplomacy, the doctrine’s influence on the popular imagination was so great that it described the limits of standard decisions on policy, in turn influencing the choice of preferences that US Presidents had for most of the last two centuries.
Host: On September the 11th 2001, the notorious terror organisation known as Al-Qaeda struck at the very heart of the United States. The death count was approximately 3,000; a nation was left in panic. To this day, counterterrorism experts and historians alike regard the event surrounding 9/11 as a turning point in US foreign relations. Outraged and fearful of radical terrorism from the middle-east, President Bush declared that in 2001 that it was a matter of freedoms; that “our very freedom has come under attack”. In his eyes, America was simply targeted because of its democratic and western values (CNN News, 2001). In the 14 years following this pivotal declaration, an aggressive, pre-emptive approach to terrorism replaced the traditional
This threat to “American democratic values and way of life” prompted Bush’s preemptive National Security Strategy as the security environment is changing and terrorist groups and rogue sponsor states ability to use weapons such as weapons of mass destruction are becoming an increasing threat to the American people, American interests, and the allies of the Unites States. Finally, Bush’s National Security Strategy and preemptive doctrine are based on American values and national interests and its objectives are spreading political and economic freedoms, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity.
An Imperial Presidency Writers of the constitution intended for congress to be the most powerful branch of government. They invested in the president: the powers of the monarch, but subjected him to the democratic principles of accountability which was ensured by a complex system of parliamentary and judicial checks and balances. For over a century the US got along fine with a relatively weak president whose major role was simply to carry out the laws and policies made by congress, however, there has been erosion in this system. Presidential power only started to grow after the 19th century when the US set out on its path to empire.
Now that the idea of a global war has been established, it is important to establish the role of the United States (USA). One of the most important documents in establishing this was the ‘Truman Doctrine’. President Harry S. Truman (1945-53) outlined what would become the basis of US foreign policy for the duration of the Cold War. This was the policy of containment – trying to keep communism from spreading to the rest of the world. His speech to Congress in March 19...
George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States (Washington, D.C.:The White House, September 2002).
The term “doctrine” definition is “A statement of authorized government policy, especially in overseas concerns and military strategy” (“Doctrine”, n.d.). The expression Presidential doctrine means an ideological platform that a president uses to spread a policy towards a country or region in order to accomplish foreign policy objectives for the United States. Presidents like James Monroe, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon etc. articulated their policies but amongst these executive doctrines, the doctrine of President Reagan is significant.
The doctrine is a particular policy which advocated as government, or basically it is an idea to solve or to deal with some kind of problems or issues. There were twelve Presidential foreign policy doctrines that have been issued throughout the United State’ history since 1823. The Bush Doctrine was the eleventh Presidential foreign policy doctrine which was issued in 2001 by the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush. The Bush Doctrine basically argues that the United States will go after the terrorists all over the world wherever they go and the countries which try to protect them, in addition, the United States has a right to practice preemptive attack for “confront the worst threats before they emerge.” (History News Network) In this paper, after discussing the historical context and origins of the doctrine, I will analyze this Bush Doctrine from three different perspectives. First perspective is whether the Administration followed a policy of isolation or internationalism. The second perspective is whether the president and his doctrine implemented policies that were Unilateral, Bilateral, or Multilateral in nature and the third perspective is whether Administration and doctrine were transactional or transformational.
With the first test in the doctrine, “is a vital national interest at stake?”, the issue is determining what is vital to our national interest. The decision is easy when looking at extremes, i.e. a direct attack on the United States, but the decision becomes difficult when you’re looking between the extremes. The issue becomes how to outline with precision national interests. If we define national interest narrowly (only direct threats) our foreign policy will be characterized by isolationism. Define it in a broad look our foreign policy will be an internationalist approach. The bottom line is American interests are situational, and must be influenced by our best judgment and basic values. This flexibility of this test has both strengths and weakness. The strength being the ability to broaden or narrow our focus on world events giving us freedom of action. Freedom of action can make us unpredictable, which is clearly an advantage over our enemies. The weakness in this test is the same; ambiguity can cause political problems home and abroad. At home it is hard to get public support for a foreign policy that has shifting views of national interest, and abroad other countries will find it difficult to deal with an ally who cannot specify its rules of engagement.
... Sept. 11th, 2001, terrorist attack on theWorld Trade Center and the unreliability of U.S. intelligence onWeapons of mass Destruction in Iraq have been a focus of intense scrutiny in the U.S. in 2004 particularly in the context of the 9/11 Commision , the continuing armed resistance against U.S. occupation of Iraq, and the widely perceived need for systematic review of the respective roles of the CIA, FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency. On July 9th, 2004 the Senate report of Pre-war Intelligenceon Iraq of the Senate Intelligence Committe stated that the CIA described the danger presented by Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in an unreasonable way, largely unsupported by the available intelligence. In a briefing held Sept 15th, 2001 George Tenet presented the Worldwide Attack Matrix, a "top-secret" document describing covert CIA anti-terror operations in 80 countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The actions, underway or being recommended, would range from "routine propaganda to lethal covert action in preparation for military attacks". The plans, if carried out, "would give the CIA the broadest and most lethal authority in its history".
When looking at the powers of different presidents, you have to look at their responsibilities and what power they actually have when it comes to decision making. Both the Iranian and American presidents have two different presidential powers, formal and informal. Formal powers are ones that are written into the constitution and have to be upheld by anyone who comes into power, for example both presidents can sign treaties with foreign countries. Informal power are not explicitly written into the constitution (1), but are done by the president, for example being persuasive, this is a power they need to use because that is how they will gain the presidential role, by persuading the public and to make international treaties they need to use the
The strategy of the United States concentrates on the next five to ten years in order to protect the national interests around the global. With the increase in globalization, the ability to have a presence in all regions becomes important to national security and the United States accomplishes this by building and strengthening alliances. This promotes stability and security in the region as well. Defending the home front is the most important objective of the NSS and in order to accomplish that, continued global power projection is necessary. The NDS and NMS both seek to accomplish this through a thorough assessment of the strategic environment and applying either diplomatic or military power as necessary. The military serves as a major deterrent to potential adversaries, because of the United States’ military capability.
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.
The Doctrine of Separation of powers is the harbinger to all the constitutions in the world. The Doctrine of Separation of powers came about during the existence of “The Great Charter” which is also known as “Magna Carta”. Lord Acton then remarkably quoted the phrase: