The Bush Doctrine in Asia

As a result of the war in Iraq, the Bush Doctrine has come under heavy fire from both right and left. Many analysts have said the doctrine, with its emphasis on unilateral action, preemptive (or preventive) attack, and regime change, amounts to a quest for empire. If it is not quite “neo-imperialism,” U.S. policy at the least seeks more than mere hegemony. ¹ Others have argued that the Bush Doctrine has resulted in greatly diminished U.S. legitimacy in the world, ² so much so that conservative critics like Clyde Prestowitz have said the United States has become a “rogue nation.” ³ Whatever the appropriate label might be, one thing seems clear: In its quest for absolute security, the United States under George W. Bush has by its actions contributed to global insecurity. His administration’s response to the 9/11 attacks has been disproportional and self-defeating. The United States has turned its back on international cooperation on the environment and arms control, has invaded another country under false pretenses, and has violated international law. It has favored threats and use of force when diplomatic alternatives, in particular preventive measures, were available. In this new, supposedly post-Cold War era, the Bush team remains mired in Cold-War thinking—the thinking of a “new American century” in which the United States dictates the rules and expects others—states and international organizations alike—to abide by them. ⁴ The difference between then and now is that both the domestic and international constraints on U.S. primacy are far weaker today than during the Cold War.