Bush doctrineJUSTICE OF SELF DEFENSE

Yoojin KwonChaiwon Baek

Jaehee LeeJunhwa Lee

Ryu HansaemJooyeon LimWongi Jung

2

table of contentsTERMS AND DEFINITIONSHISTORY OF U.S. DIPLOMATICSLIMITATIONS OF BUSH DOCTRINEREASONS FOR BUSH DOCTRINEMEDIA RESPONSE: PROS & CONSOBAMA AND FUTURE

3

Bush DoctrineTERMS AND DEFINITIONS

4

9/11 Crisis

Invasion of Afghanistan

Bush DoctrineESCALATION

breach of trustwith middle east

5

...the first duty of the United States remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests.

The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction.

To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self defense.

“”

Bush DoctrineDEFINITION

National Security Strategy of the United States, Sep 17th, 2002

6

7

preemptive strikesDEFINITION

If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

Our security will require transforming the military you will lead: a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world.

“”George W. Bush, Jun 1st, 2002 speech at West Point

8

unilateralismSUMMARY

... any doctrine or agenda that supports one-sided action.

a tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement, even with their allies.

“”

Wikipedia: Unilateralism

The Free Dictionary.com

history ofU.S. DIPLOMATICS

10

“Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition...?”

isolationismGEORGE WASHINGTON

George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796

11

monroe doctrineJAMES MONROE

“...we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

7th annual State of the Union address, 1823

12

a big stickTHEODORE ROOSEVELT

"Chronic wrongdoing... may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation,"

“walk softly, but carry a big stick.”

Roosevelt corollary to Monroe doctrine, 1905

13

Ike’s dominoDWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

“You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is a certainty that it will go over very quickly.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954 press conference

14

after 9.11GEORGE W. BUSH

“You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror.”

George W. Bush, 2001 Nov. 6th press conference

larger backyardNOT IN MY BACKYARD

limitationsOF BUSH DOCTRINE

One of threeaxis of evil

Highly dependent on export of oil

Had the first Gulf War with U.S.

about Iraq“DARK CORNER OF THE WORLD”

18

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Human Rights Violation

500t Uranium from Nigeria

justifications

19

MARCH 20TH, 2003freedom of IraqAmerica carried out preemptive strike against Iraqwithout UN’s permission

MAY 1ST, 2003end of the war

Allied forces bombed Iraq, overthrew the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain

20

breach of integrity

Dr. David A. Kay

“... Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.”

head of the Iraq Survey Weapons inspector

21

important questions

1. Is it possible to check possession of WMD?

2. Then, did Iraq have WMD?

3. Can this Doctrine resolve and prevent terrorism?

CAN BUSH DOCTRINE BE JUSTIFIED?

22

1. Is it possible to check possession of WMD?

23

2. Then, did Iraq have WMD?

24

3. Can this doctrine resolve and prevent terrorism?

then, why?REASONS FOR BUSH DOCTRINE

To protect U.S. from terrorists

more influence and benefits

to protect AmericaTHE VANTAGE POINT

Given the magnitude of threat, the only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use weapons of mass destruction… removing Saddam Hussein and his regime for power. That needs to become the aim of U.S. foreign policy.“

”Jan 26th, 1998 letter to President Clinton,

to protect America9/11 TERROR

- “The U.S. will not distinguish terrorists and nations that harbor terrorists.”

- Al Qaeda attacked WTC and Pentagon on 9/11, 2001.

to protect AmericaFLAW OF LOGIC

- Why not attack other axis of evil?

- According to U.N. investigation, there was no WMD in Iraq.

richer, strongerREVIVING PAX AMERICANA

to gain control of oil

to interfere inforeign states

to get a ticketto bypass U.N.

richer, strongerSECURING OIL RESOURCES

- Saddam Hussein had wanted to control the Straits of Hormuz and so control Middle East oil shipments.

- “Had Saddam been able to do that it would have been devastating to the west.”

Alan Greenspan, a long time head of the U.S. Central Bank

richer, strongerINTERFERING IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

- Establishing precedents for future U.S. intervention

- Another Afghanistan war, another Iraqi war

richer, strongerNO UN, ONLY US!

- Establishing precedents for bypassing U.N.

- The U.S. did not ask the U.N. security council’s approval in implementing Bush doctrine and using preemptive strikes

34

consequencesBUSH DOCTRINE:

35

failureAL-QUEDA DILEMMA

- Osama Bin Laden escapes

- Eventually captured and executed more than 10 years later

- Terrorist groups still flourish

36

TALIBAN AND AFGHANISTAN

- The U.S. liberated Afghan from Taliban

- The new government was corrupted

- Drug lords, criminals everywhere

- Reconstruction never happened,

Taliban resurging

failure

37

PAKISTANfailure

- $10 billion gov investment went elsewhere

- Anti-Americanism due to drone attacks

- Tribal areas in the hands of Pakistani

version of Taliban

38

- Iraqi and American war victims

- No WMD, no reconstruction

Resistance due to Anti-Americanism -

Greater nuclear threat to the U.S. -

IRAQ AND IRANfailure

39

Bush doctrineMEDIA RESPONSE

“...overly aggressive stance Mr. Bush has outlined”

“created a fortress America that inspires the enmity rather than the envy of the world"

The New York Times

“...an unwillingness to be constrained by international organizations”

“failed... primarily because of fuzzy thinking and poor execution…”

The Washington Post

"poses a fundamental challenge to the world body... and may lead to a global freedom"

Al Jazeera

Bush DoctrineOBAMA AND FUTURE

44

...does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on the U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future...“ ”A memo from Obama National Security Apparatus

Bush DoctrineWILL IT CONTINUE?

aftermathJUSTIFICATION OF DRONES

MORE PREEMPTIVE STRIKESdrone attacks