Financial

Bush Doctrine

Also found in: Wikipedia.

Bush Doctrine

A neoconservative foreign policy idea in the United States. It is most commonly associated with efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States through the invasion of foreign countries thought to be safe havens for terrorist groups. It is also used to express regime change, or the attempt to replace a dictatorship with a fledgling democracy. More generally, the term describes American unilateralism.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved
References in periodicals archive
However, the changing war aims in Afghanistan, the super weak and dubious pretext for Afghanistan invasion, the illegal and inhuman Guantanamo Bay imprisonment and the refusal to obey the imperial nation's orders receives the following treatment from Coll: 'Under the emerging Bush doctrine, Omar's refusal to cooperate in Bin Laden's arrest condemned the Taliban to mass slaughter and indefinite imprisonment as enemy combatants.
The Bush doctrine is basically characterized by unilateralism and preemptive strikes.
The ten selections that make up the main body of the text are devoted to the relationship between presidents and foreign policy, the limits of American power, understanding the Bush doctrine, globalization as a security strategy, and a wide variety of other related subjects.
However, by the end of Bush's (II) second term, the American public was exhausted with the Bush Doctrine. In reaction, the Obama administration entered office in 2009 with the goal of recalibrating US foreign policy, emphasizing smart power, coalition building, and increased reliance on regional partners, as well as a more limited use of military force.
Obama," and says his ISIS strategy, so far, mimics the Bush doctrine in acknowledging that the war will be long, fought on a global stage, and justified by the need to hit extremists in the Middle East before they can attack the United States.
Foreign Policy," Trachtenberg convincingly argues that the "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war was nothing new.
That was precisely the aspect of the Bush Doctrine that led to the overreach that cost so much in blood and treasure that Nau decries.
Everyone knows that democracy played a role in the Bush Doctrine. What not everyone knows is that this role was essential for the doctrine to be put into operation under which the Iraq invasion was prepared and launched.
When the so-called Bush Doctrine was established with the release of the National Security Strategy on September 20, 2002, its promise to "act against such emerging threats [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] before they are fully formed" was viewed by many as a radical overhaul of US national security doctrine, but Warren (Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia) argues that the Bush Doctrine's statements on counter-proliferation and preventive war were merely explicit statements of concepts that have been implicit in previous administrations' National Security Strategy releases extending back to the end of World War II.
Its label then (and my answer) was "the Bush Doctrine."
James Kirchick of the The New Republic upped the appeasement ante by predicting that the president-to-be would "remain impassive in the face of genocide" For liberals, meanwhile, Obama offered up the I'm Not Bush Doctrine: Obama's campaign brain trust told Spencer Ackerman in The American Prospect that "they envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering 'democracy promotion' agenda in favor of 'dignity promotion,' to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root."
Renshon begins by examining the origins and principles of the Bush Doctrine, as well as critiques of its approach to national security.
Copyright © 2003-2025 Farlex, Inc Disclaimer
All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.