The Bush Doctrine started of as one declaring preventive (not preemptive--lordy, there's a big difference) war as falling within jus ad bellum.
Via LGF, we get Charles Krauthammer's take. I find this part interesting:
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
President Bush is a Liberal/Utopian, and it makes sense he would trend in this direction. But the Bush Doctrine, in reality, is a modern reformulation of Kant's Perpetual Peace. Granted, I know Kant is old, dead and white and his critics are legion; but his logic still holds up (as seen in Democratic Peace Theory which is Kantian vice communitarian/cooperative). If you wish to know how our foreign policy, in part, evolves over the next few years, I recommend Kant's Philosophical Sketch:
SECOND DEFINITIVE ARTICLE FOR A PERPETUAL PEACE
"The Law of Nations Shall be Founded on a Federation of Free States"
Comments