Mel Gurtov's Superpower on Crusade According to Mel Gurtov, most would say that foreign policy has an erratic temperament. In his insightful book, "Superpower on Crusade: The Bush Doctrine in U.S. Foreign Policy", Gurtov shows that Bush's foreign policy follows his predecessors' policies of regime change, unilateralism, and an expanded military. The big things he believes to be Bush's gift to future presidents are two new highly controversial concepts. These key concepts are preemption and unprecedented secrecy. These two changes are something that Gurtov views as unwise and misleading to the population.
The consequences, by far out-weigh the positive affects of war. Initially, September 11th seemed to be the turning point of the United States, although there is no reasonable explanation for such an action (Zinn). But still, particular event had such a dramatic change of the United States’ opinion towards Iraq. Despite of all the evidence that obviously proves Iraq is innocent, the United State... ... middle of paper ... ... time, money, and lives to accomplish what? Instead, Bush needs to swallow his pride and except his unawareness of warnings and consequences, then informing the blindly persuaded citizens the poorly hidden truth.
In Bush's speech, he says that "we'll accept no outcome but victory." (Bush) He is referring to the war with Iraq, and according to him, the war will "free its people and defend the world from grave danger." (Bush) He makes the decision to go into war and he seems very confiden... ... middle of paper ... ... Americans that by going to war is the right thing, no matter what. In the end, President George W. Bush speech has shown his arrogance and naivety in going to war. Bush has also demonstrated that his true desire in war is to show off weapons.
After the WMD came up empty in Iraq, President Bush and the United States were labeled as “war loving” and wanting to “conquer the Middle East”. Even though the expectations of the world seem to look to the United States for answers during turmoil, the other edge of the blade is we are too involved in others affairs. President Obama’s stance is not only smart it draws attention away from extremist’s claims that the Unites States agenda to westernize the Middle East. Letting other countries such as France, deal with Libya who was once under Frances rule, shows we have no hidden agenda in the country. Only a common bond of truly wanting peace, the best interest of the people in the region, and mutual respect regardless of differences will allow for conflict to end.
America'a Role in Iraq As Afghan opposition groups and U.S. armed forces continue their successes in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the American debate has quickly turned to the question of where the fight against terrorism should go next. In numerous public statements, President Bush has talked about a wide-ranging campaign against global terrorism. He has not committed to military operations against any other countries or terrorist organizations, but he has made it clear that the broader struggle against terrorism will be a long-lasting effort that could include the use of military force in regions beyond Afghanistan. A strong case can be made that Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, is so threatening to his people, his neighbors, and U.S. interests that the United States should use military force, unilaterally if necessary, to overthrow him. Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved.
In his address, Obama claims that a “robust democracy” demands contentious debate in which people fight for their beliefs. In some respects, he is correct. However, if he includes dissent in this robust democracy, he is gravely mistaken. Dissent ostracizes and condemns individuals because of what they believe in, which is clearly not something a robust democracy demands. “We are part of the American family,” the president said.
America and her citizens started to rouse from their long slumber and realize that the dream does not swab away the realism of their waking life. Because of this, Foreigners have been reluctant in believing in the United States; but one must understand that it is not the American Dream but so many other factors such as Wealth, Influence, jealousy, and imperialism. However, one must not forget the debate on the United States attendance in Iraq and its activities as an “imperial bully” and its domination culturally in the United States. Foreigners do not understand the actions America took to go directly into the war in Iraq. America is a world power and for Saddam Hussein to have the audacity attack us in such a way is highly disrespectful.
Locke’s ideas helped created our form of government by calling separation of legislative and executive powers. Base on Obama’s actions Locke would agree that this bill is needed because he is ignoring his duty. However Locke’s idea of separation of powers is different from ours, given what he wrote, there is proof that he would be slide with those wanting to force the President’s hand in this issue. John Locke’s ideas of separation of power is a lot different from our idea. Locke believed in a limited monarch, and we clearly do not.
During Bush?s State of the Union speech, he emphasized that a key role of our government was to protect us from foreign terrorists. However, if the Bush Administration continues to advocate such measures as the Patriot Act, then an important question is raised: Who will protect us from our own government? I conclude my stance with a quote from Senator Russel Feingold the sole senator who voted in opposition to the USA Patriot Act, Feingold passionately states ?Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war against terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. ?
The policy paper, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America" -- call it the Bush doctrine -- is a romantic justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. This document truly deserves the overused term "revolutionary," but its release was eclipsed by the Iraq debate. Recall the moment. Bush, having just backed away from unilateralism long enough to deliver a speech to the United Nations, was now telling Congress to give him the power to go to war with Iraq whenever and however he liked. Congress, with selective reluctance, was skating sideways toward a qualified endorsement.