X hits on this document

PDF document

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO - page 4 / 50

204 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 50

Chapter One Introduction

I. Reading a Connection between U.S. Foreign Policy and Cowboy Ethics

In this paper, I seek to analyze an approach used by President George W. Bush to

justify his administration’s foreign policies and practices. I am not here concerned with

providing a geopolitical framework for assessing the effectiveness of the Bush Doctrine;

rather, I am interested in understanding how the administration’s assertive foreign policy

priorities are being enunciated and justified as morally upright to the American public.

To counter Americans’ distrust of their government as an imperialist power, the

administration tries to reassure the American people by presenting their foreign policy as

legitimate.1 This approach of legitimizing U.S. foreign policy by disassociating it with

imperialistic desires is the strategy I wish to explore in my work.

Moreover, my paper will focus on the policy of preemption2 contained in the

Bush Doctrine, for at the heart of the doctrine lies an underlying moral justification for

the use of preemptive strike (Welch 2003, 1). Simply put, the doctrine attempts to affirm

the legitimacy of preemption by claiming that the United States must act now militarily

or pay dearly for inaction later (The White House 2002, 13-16). Preemption, the doctrine

asserts, could itself be a defense against the menacing obstacles (i.e. terrorists and rogue

1 In the first chapter of U.S. Foreign Policy Since 1945, Alan P. Dobson and Steve Marsh described the rift between democratic principles and U.S. foreign policy that created a new problem post-WWII, i.e. “the imperial presidency” (Dobson and Marsh 2001, 1-17).

2 I use Richard Haass’s definition of preemptive use of force as coming against a backdrop of tactical intelligence or warning indicating imminent military action by an adversary (Haass 1999,

52). The United States, like other countries, has practiced preemption in the past that right is written into the UN Charter and isn’t a new idea. However, basically saying that preemption is America’s primary objective is new (Sick 2002, 4-6).

1

Document info
Document views204
Page views204
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 14:04:09 UTC 2017
Pages50
Paragraphs971
Words15956

Comments