ipl-logo

How Did Bush Use Foreign Policy To Gain National Interest?

1556 Words7 Pages

American national interests and the way they are carried out are constantly shifting. National interests are a country’s economic, military, and cultural goals and ambitions. By prioritizing national interests in foreign affairs, a nation can preserve its sovereignty. Presidents of the United States, such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, have used foreign policy to push national interests. Foreign policy sees many shifts between presidents from unilateral and preemptive approaches to multilateral and collaborative approaches. The national interests of the United States saw majors shifts under the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, causing other nations to respond by applauding the transition …show more content…

Bush’s administration, the United States military invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan in hopes of bringing democracy and freedom to the nations, resulting in two long and expensive wars in the Middle East. During Bush’s administration, the most devastating terrorist attack happened in the United States, 9/11, allowing the administration to expand its military response. In response to this tragedy, Bush published the National Security Strategy of the United States (N.S.S.) in 2002 which contained Bush’s two core ideas on foreign affairs: preemption and preventive war and willingness to act unilaterally. Firstly, Bush’s plans for foreign affairs saw a major shift from containment to preemption, the justification of United States for attacking another nation to prevent an attack on itself, mainly nations who sponsor terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction (Bush). Bush shared this idea in the N.S.S. stating, “It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage” (Bush). This idea is further outlined in the joint resolution “Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq 2002.” It gives Bush the authorization to attack Iraq if he deems necessary, granting him more power in war-making decisions as a president and allowing him to act preemptively. Bush felt acting preemptively was in the nation’s interest because it gave the …show more content…

For instance, in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush invaded before discussing other options with any nation. He had the United States take the lead on these invasions before collaborating with other nations. For instance, Bush led a coalition to bombing Baghdad, starting the war in Iraq (Singal). This unilateral, preemptive approach Bush took destabilized many of the United States’ alliances. The opposition to the wars was widespread throughout Europe, reflecting opposition through “anti-Bush” and anti-war sentiments. The Iraq War’s opposition was polled at rates as high as 91% in both Italy and Spain, while this same opposition spread throughout countries in Eastern Europe as well (Arie). United Nations Secretary, Kofi Annan, describe the war as “illegal” as it was “not in conformity with the Security Council” (Tyler). However, after invading, Bush then looked to his allies for support, which he received from the United Kingdom and Australia, followed by other allies (Williams). President Bush saw that invading unilaterally was in the United States best interest in order to protect the nation and seek regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan without receiving support from other nations first.Under Bush’s administration, the main focus was on acting preemptively and unilaterally if necessary to protect the United

Show More
Related
1180 Words | 5 Pages

Even after the attack on the Twin Towers, both George Bush and Franklin Roosevelt seen preemptive warfare was necessary to protect against and prevent further

Read More
157 Words | 1 Pages

In recent discussions of trumps airstrike, a controversial issue has been whether or not Trumps strike was warranted. On the one hand, Author Tom Smith argues that the syrian strike was a good thing. From this perspective Smith assumes Trump is taking a step in the right direction. On the other hand, however, Author Aldan Heir argues that the syrian strike was illegal. In the words of Heir, one of the view’s main proponents,” These airstrikes are clearly illegal.”

Read More
1031 Words | 5 Pages

Entering WWII brought America out of its depression and into the complicated world of political affairs. The change of U.S. foreign policy from the end of the First World War to the end of the Korean War changed drastically as the U.S. became a stronger world power. From isolationism to encouragement of interventions, it can be said that the U.S. reversed its policy within a few decades. The shift in its policy can be attributed to the international wars that got the U.S. involved with world politics, involvement of U.S. presidents in the world affairs, and the growing power of other foreign powers, such as the Soviet Union. Wars are the one of the central factors in international affairs.

Read More
398 Words | 2 Pages

Bush and the rest of the world would face one of the most devastating days in U.S. history. Terrorists had hijacked four U.S. commercial jetliners targeting New York and Washington, D.C. which three out of the four hit. Bush handled this situation with courage and confidence as he promised the American people that he would do all that he could to prevent another horrific attack. Strategies were formed to resolve the conflict. For a time, there was monitoring international phone calls made by U.S. citizens, and soon Bush administration started seeking to destroy Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations using military forces.

Read More
1297 Words | 6 Pages

Former President Bush instantly and instantly reacted to the news of the attack by saying simply, “We are at war.” Thus Former President Bush is associating the 9/11 attacks with warfare. Former President Bush again is employing rhetorical techniques to define reality in a new way. In addition, he is also disassociating the “new” war from the old style wars. All of this begins to highlight the pertinence of Schmitt’s theory for understanding post 9/11 rhetoric.

Read More
715 Words | 3 Pages

Defense, known as resisting attack, combined with foreign, a country other than its own country, equals out to be the defense for your own country for its good against opposing foreign countries. During the time period of 1789 through 1825, the United States extended foreign policy as a method of defense and protection from perceived or actual threats of the almighty Europe. During the late 1700’s while Washington was President, he ordered for a foreign policy of Neutrality; neutrality meaning maintaining unharmful relations with both France and Britain. As the idea of protection and defense of America was continued to be kept in mind by our federal government, by the early 1800’s the Monroe Doctrine was eventually formed to avoid any interferences by Europe and their contagious conflicts, preventing our land to ever

Read More
413 Words | 2 Pages

A renewed comprehension of these standards will permit us to justify actions abroad that advance our security and interests but temper that pursuit with a consciousness of our ethical commitments to different countries. The net impact of a renewed application of Founding principles would be a foreign policy that better promotes our good, the good of other countries and people, and the good of the world as a whole. Understanding the dangerous inadequacies of Progressive foreign policy, combined with a proper information of Founding foreign policy, will permit us to stay away from the pitfalls of two extremes in contemporary foreign policy: on the one extreme, a simply unbiased and idealistic foreign policy by which we interminably devote our military and other assets to the freedom and welfare of others and a policy of neutrality or intolerant self-enthusiasm by which both neglect forward-thinking actions necessary for our immediate and future security and miss genuine chances to help other people by prudentially advancing the universal principles to which we as a nation are committed.3 The loss of this conviction was the high cost of the Progressives' rebuilding of American foreign policy. A reestablished comprehension of the Founders' foreign policy is the way to reestablishing

Read More
1255 Words | 6 Pages

Bush, in his address, makes use of arguments of association with a sense of duty to ignite a fire within the American citizens. From the onset of the speech, Bush’s objective becomes clear: inspire the public. He states: “Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve” (“9/11 Address to the Nation,” para. 3). The attacks ultimately destroyed the World Trade Center; the towers collapsed wreaking havoc on the city underneath.

Read More
767 Words | 4 Pages

Contrasting the hawkish George H.W. and George W. Bush presidencies were the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama administrations, noted for their lack of military involvement in world affairs. Many praised the doves’ non-interventionist policies, as the loss of US lives was avoided and quagmires such as Vietnam were circumvented. However, the hawks argued that the US should have intervened in crises in places like Rwanda and Syria. The Obama administration was famous for its decline in the number of troops present in the Middle East and the end of the war in Iraq, both of which appealed to a large number of doves within his

Read More
565 Words | 3 Pages

When it started out, he was only trying to keep the United States in

Read More
645 Words | 3 Pages

In 1921, Warren G. Harding stated that “we seek no part in directing the destinies of the world.” - This reflected the public’s attitude that America should keep to itself, rather than trying to play “world police” by intervening in conflicts around the world, particularly in the disputes between European nations. - The subsequent presidents, Coolidge (1923-1929) and Hoover (1929-1933) both agreed and continued with this policy of selective isolationism. - The three successive Republican

Read More
847 Words | 4 Pages

In addition to context, the military initiated by the Bush administration were amply supported by Americans shortly after

Read More
947 Words | 4 Pages

A combination of doctrines and emotions – belief in permanent and universal crisis, fear of communism, faith in the duty and right of the United States to intervene swiftly in every part of the world – had brought about an unprecedented centralization of decisions over war and peace in the presidency. ”(Schlesinger 208). Playing to the constant fear of communism emerging after World War II, presidents have used that as enough of a justification to send our troops away. Surpassing congress by saying we were in imminent danger and essentially, what

Read More
798 Words | 4 Pages

President Bush used logical appeal in the opening sentence of his speech. He opened by saying, “Just 2 hours ago, allied air forces began an attack on military targets in Iraq and Kuwait.” This is key evidence that a war has been started. President Bush makes it clear that the reasoning of this war started on August 2nd. He continued to say that the dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, invaded a “small and helpless neighbor,” Kuwait.

Read More
1446 Words | 6 Pages

The invasion of Iraq echoes the ideological view of Woodrow Wilson, immediately following World War I. In Wilson’s opinion, his Liberal Internationalism was a cure-all end-all to conflicts between nations. His matrix of diagnoses and prescriptions

Read More

More about How Did Bush Use Foreign Policy To Gain National Interest?

Related Topics

Open Document