What do you think?
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, shattered the prevalent optimism in the United States that had blossomed during the tranquil and prosperous 1990s, when democracy seemed triumphant and catastrophic wars were a relic of the past. President George W. Bush responded with a bold and controversial grand strategy for waging a preemptive Global War on Terror, which has ignited passionate debate about the purposes of American power and the nation's proper role in the world.
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine offers a vigorous argument for the principles of moral democratic realism that inspired the Bush administration's policy of regime change in Iraq. The Bush Doctrine rests on two main pillars―the inadequacy of deterrence and containment strategies when dealing with terrorists and rogue regimes, and the culture of tyranny in the Middle East, which spawns aggressive secular and religious despotisms.
Two key premises shape Kaufman's case for the Bush Doctrine's conformity with moral democratic realism. The first is the fundamental purpose of American foreign policy since its to ensure the integrity and vitality of a free society "founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual." The second premise is that the cardinal virtue of prudence (the right reason about things to be done) must be the standard for determining the best practicable American grand strategy.
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine provides a broader historical context for the post–September 11 American foreign policy that will transform world politics well into the future. Kaufman connects the Bush Doctrine and current issues in American foreign policy, such as how the U.S. should deal with China, to the deeper tradition of American diplomacy. Drawing from positive lessons as well as cautionary tales from the past, Kaufman concludes that moral democratic realism offers the most compelling framework for American grand strategy, as it expands the democratic zone of peace and minimizes the number and gravity of threats the United States faces in the modern world.
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine offers a vigorous argument for the principles of moral democratic realism that inspired the Bush administration's policy of regime change in Iraq. The Bush Doctrine rests on two main pillars―the inadequacy of deterrence and containment strategies when dealing with terrorists and rogue regimes, and the culture of tyranny in the Middle East, which spawns aggressive secular and religious despotisms.
Two key premises shape Kaufman's case for the Bush Doctrine's conformity with moral democratic realism. The first is the fundamental purpose of American foreign policy since its to ensure the integrity and vitality of a free society "founded upon the dignity and worth of the individual." The second premise is that the cardinal virtue of prudence (the right reason about things to be done) must be the standard for determining the best practicable American grand strategy.
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine provides a broader historical context for the post–September 11 American foreign policy that will transform world politics well into the future. Kaufman connects the Bush Doctrine and current issues in American foreign policy, such as how the U.S. should deal with China, to the deeper tradition of American diplomacy. Drawing from positive lessons as well as cautionary tales from the past, Kaufman concludes that moral democratic realism offers the most compelling framework for American grand strategy, as it expands the democratic zone of peace and minimizes the number and gravity of threats the United States faces in the modern world.
264 pages, Paperback
First published May 11, 2007
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
March 5, 2009
The title says it all. I found this particularly helpful in constructing a lecture intellectually justifying Bush foreign policy. Weed through the detours and some faulty cause and effect arguments . . . there is some solid explanatory content.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 26, 2016
The book is a 50/50. What do I mean by this? The author makes some interesting and valid points, however, he is totally misguided in many of his perspectives'
Many of the titles condemning the use of drones in warfare and that are entirely against the principle of anticipatory self-defense. They are also misguided, shortsighted and filled with vitriol and bias. The same comment, regarding deep seated bias, applies on both ends of the polarized political spectrum, when taking into account the writing of Robert G, Kaufman, who deserves special mention. This author moralizes and lectures, in commanding fashion, on the appropriate way individuals ought to act and think in his book, “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.” While he lauds those who agree with his rather extreme views; everyone who dances to the tune of Kaufman’s fiddle is graced as either magnificent, magisterial, marvelous or brilliant, however, woe unto them that dare disagree.
His writing is peppered with virulent and disparaging critic for other political systems, philosophical outlooks, and authors; often based upon selective interpretation of their writing. It is unfortunate that many of his most relevant points, such as: the importance of the threat posed by, and containment of, North Korea; the failure of adequate and timely intervention during the Rwandan genocide; the short sighted illusory utopian fantasies of liberalism; the reductionist shortcomings of moral relativism, and the need for a firm commitment backed with decisive action in the face of terrorism, all get brushed aside, in the light of such egregious imbalance.
Kaufman is sorely misguided on a number of other important issues, notably the need to invade Iraq in 2003, which largely proved and indeed continues to prove itself a strategic and shortsighted political blunder. Many of his assertions are fallacious, or off the mark, in relation with reality. While he writes on the impending dangers posed by Iran, which supports and sponsors terrorist movements such as that of Hezbollah, which is absolutely correct, Kaufman fails, on the other hand, to make mention that the government installed in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion was Shia dominated and hence largely pro-Iranian. Finally, as regards his blind support of the Bush doctrine, and his assertion that the highway of death during the First Gulf War was an exaggeration, it must be pointed out that the inverse of moral relevance does not equate with “my way or the highway” type philosophy in a liberal democratic state.
If Kaufman had his way the U.S. would be imperialistically imposing its will upon many states including Iran and North Korea, in the same fashion it did with Iraq. His approach is conflictual rather than conciliatory and cooperative. According to Kaufman preemptive intervention (which he mistakenly equates with preventive) is only justified if it is the “prudential” United States employing it. However, as we saw earlier, while anticipatory self-defense is permissible, preventative intervention is not. It is not only unethical it is illegal. Consider the following acerbic and bellicose passage which is typical of such rhetoric:
"The invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in March 2003, was necessary and long overdue. Saddam was a symbol of defiance to American power in a region emboldened to defy it, especially after 9/11. Saddam not only had once possessed WMD, but had used them at home and abroad: against Kurds Shiites, and Iranians. He launched Scud Missiles into Israel during the First Gulf War. To the end, Saddam continued to act as if he possessed weapons of mass destruction; every reputable intelligence service shared our assumption that he still possessed them, an error for which Saddam rather than President Bush was to blame…Saddam also exploited the rampantly corrupt UN oil-for-food program to buy off the French, Russians and Chinese to abet his diabolical plans for developing WMD capability."
Allow me to briefly address the above passage. As may be ascertained by simply glancing at the cited wording, Kaufman’s assertions are not merely ludicrous, they are also legally and ethically questionable. Let us address a few issues in order: there was no pressing necessity, nor was there any justification, to invade Iraq, it is a well-known fact. By stating that it was long overdue, Kaufman takes the invasion from one of just cause to one of retribution, a legally prohibited justification for the use of armed force. So Saddam was a symbol of defiance, is that any justification for invading a sovereign state? What if the tables were turned, would the U.S. also accept such a justification for invasion? Especially after 9/11? Despite the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were unquestionably horrific and unjustified, did that automatically provide justification for the invasion of Iraq, given that there was absolutely zero evidence of their involvement? Indeed, Saddam may have launched scud missiles into Israel, and may also have used poison gas, but these were past crimes that were never confronted or addressed. He could have been tried before the international criminal court if there had been sufficient evidence.
Again Saddam acted as if he had WMD. Is that a justifiable excuse for invasion? Reputable intelligence agencies are certainly not very reputable if they rely upon assumptions rather than evidence. Finally, accusing the UN, the French (whom Kaufman especially denigrates), the Russians, and the Chinese of collusion in aiding and abetting Saddam to obtain WMD is simply too absurd for comment. Suh an accusation reposes out there somewhere with the conspiracy theory crowd; the ones who crowed so loudly about Saddam’s WMDs. I do not wish my thrust here to be misinterpreted. Indeed, Saddam was an evil guy, particularly after he failed to tow the Western line of rhetoric, however, his character has nothing to do with the justification of invading a sovereign state. In this, as with many other points, Kaufman takes great liberties.
Quite Ironically he writes of Churchill’s contempt for the tyranny of censorship and restraints imposed upon free speech, where “…opposition is treason and criticism a crime,” yet does not permit others to hold and express a different point of view. He holds disdain for France and all it stands for, as well as a particularly special derision for Russia, which would have done McCarthy proud. Kaufman is as virulent concerning the former Soviet Union, as any realist I have ever read, despite his evident disdain for this former. Unfortunately, his rants, while certainly well meant, are unbalanced and this imbalance tends to drastically diminish the importance of the points of fact he does make. After careful examination of Kaufman’s proposed model of moral democratic realism one comes away feeling that human rights are but a doormat for the passage of what he terms “moral democratic realism.”
Quite Ironically, the epilogue, which was added at the end of the book, after it had already gone to the publishers, in 2006, appears to be a partial apologia on behalf of the author. While he still obstinately refused to acknowledge the sheer folly and shortsightedness of the invasion of Iraq, he backed off from his initial assertions that the U.S. was in control of the situation, even going as far as recommending withdrawal. Thus, he lamented “Nevertheless, we cannot continue on our present course, which has no clear measure of victory or means to achieve it. “This, for all his hawk-like bluster, the failure to plan ahead to use strategic foresight; of overlooking and failing to respect just-war principles, such as those of last resort and reasonable chance of success, have led to, not only a failed initiative, but also to a contemptuous depreciation of American power, resolve and commitment.
Many of the titles condemning the use of drones in warfare and that are entirely against the principle of anticipatory self-defense. They are also misguided, shortsighted and filled with vitriol and bias. The same comment, regarding deep seated bias, applies on both ends of the polarized political spectrum, when taking into account the writing of Robert G, Kaufman, who deserves special mention. This author moralizes and lectures, in commanding fashion, on the appropriate way individuals ought to act and think in his book, “In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.” While he lauds those who agree with his rather extreme views; everyone who dances to the tune of Kaufman’s fiddle is graced as either magnificent, magisterial, marvelous or brilliant, however, woe unto them that dare disagree.
His writing is peppered with virulent and disparaging critic for other political systems, philosophical outlooks, and authors; often based upon selective interpretation of their writing. It is unfortunate that many of his most relevant points, such as: the importance of the threat posed by, and containment of, North Korea; the failure of adequate and timely intervention during the Rwandan genocide; the short sighted illusory utopian fantasies of liberalism; the reductionist shortcomings of moral relativism, and the need for a firm commitment backed with decisive action in the face of terrorism, all get brushed aside, in the light of such egregious imbalance.
Kaufman is sorely misguided on a number of other important issues, notably the need to invade Iraq in 2003, which largely proved and indeed continues to prove itself a strategic and shortsighted political blunder. Many of his assertions are fallacious, or off the mark, in relation with reality. While he writes on the impending dangers posed by Iran, which supports and sponsors terrorist movements such as that of Hezbollah, which is absolutely correct, Kaufman fails, on the other hand, to make mention that the government installed in Iraq in the wake of the U.S. invasion was Shia dominated and hence largely pro-Iranian. Finally, as regards his blind support of the Bush doctrine, and his assertion that the highway of death during the First Gulf War was an exaggeration, it must be pointed out that the inverse of moral relevance does not equate with “my way or the highway” type philosophy in a liberal democratic state.
If Kaufman had his way the U.S. would be imperialistically imposing its will upon many states including Iran and North Korea, in the same fashion it did with Iraq. His approach is conflictual rather than conciliatory and cooperative. According to Kaufman preemptive intervention (which he mistakenly equates with preventive) is only justified if it is the “prudential” United States employing it. However, as we saw earlier, while anticipatory self-defense is permissible, preventative intervention is not. It is not only unethical it is illegal. Consider the following acerbic and bellicose passage which is typical of such rhetoric:
"The invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam in March 2003, was necessary and long overdue. Saddam was a symbol of defiance to American power in a region emboldened to defy it, especially after 9/11. Saddam not only had once possessed WMD, but had used them at home and abroad: against Kurds Shiites, and Iranians. He launched Scud Missiles into Israel during the First Gulf War. To the end, Saddam continued to act as if he possessed weapons of mass destruction; every reputable intelligence service shared our assumption that he still possessed them, an error for which Saddam rather than President Bush was to blame…Saddam also exploited the rampantly corrupt UN oil-for-food program to buy off the French, Russians and Chinese to abet his diabolical plans for developing WMD capability."
Allow me to briefly address the above passage. As may be ascertained by simply glancing at the cited wording, Kaufman’s assertions are not merely ludicrous, they are also legally and ethically questionable. Let us address a few issues in order: there was no pressing necessity, nor was there any justification, to invade Iraq, it is a well-known fact. By stating that it was long overdue, Kaufman takes the invasion from one of just cause to one of retribution, a legally prohibited justification for the use of armed force. So Saddam was a symbol of defiance, is that any justification for invading a sovereign state? What if the tables were turned, would the U.S. also accept such a justification for invasion? Especially after 9/11? Despite the fact that the attacks of 9/11 were unquestionably horrific and unjustified, did that automatically provide justification for the invasion of Iraq, given that there was absolutely zero evidence of their involvement? Indeed, Saddam may have launched scud missiles into Israel, and may also have used poison gas, but these were past crimes that were never confronted or addressed. He could have been tried before the international criminal court if there had been sufficient evidence.
Again Saddam acted as if he had WMD. Is that a justifiable excuse for invasion? Reputable intelligence agencies are certainly not very reputable if they rely upon assumptions rather than evidence. Finally, accusing the UN, the French (whom Kaufman especially denigrates), the Russians, and the Chinese of collusion in aiding and abetting Saddam to obtain WMD is simply too absurd for comment. Suh an accusation reposes out there somewhere with the conspiracy theory crowd; the ones who crowed so loudly about Saddam’s WMDs. I do not wish my thrust here to be misinterpreted. Indeed, Saddam was an evil guy, particularly after he failed to tow the Western line of rhetoric, however, his character has nothing to do with the justification of invading a sovereign state. In this, as with many other points, Kaufman takes great liberties.
Quite Ironically he writes of Churchill’s contempt for the tyranny of censorship and restraints imposed upon free speech, where “…opposition is treason and criticism a crime,” yet does not permit others to hold and express a different point of view. He holds disdain for France and all it stands for, as well as a particularly special derision for Russia, which would have done McCarthy proud. Kaufman is as virulent concerning the former Soviet Union, as any realist I have ever read, despite his evident disdain for this former. Unfortunately, his rants, while certainly well meant, are unbalanced and this imbalance tends to drastically diminish the importance of the points of fact he does make. After careful examination of Kaufman’s proposed model of moral democratic realism one comes away feeling that human rights are but a doormat for the passage of what he terms “moral democratic realism.”
Quite Ironically, the epilogue, which was added at the end of the book, after it had already gone to the publishers, in 2006, appears to be a partial apologia on behalf of the author. While he still obstinately refused to acknowledge the sheer folly and shortsightedness of the invasion of Iraq, he backed off from his initial assertions that the U.S. was in control of the situation, even going as far as recommending withdrawal. Thus, he lamented “Nevertheless, we cannot continue on our present course, which has no clear measure of victory or means to achieve it. “This, for all his hawk-like bluster, the failure to plan ahead to use strategic foresight; of overlooking and failing to respect just-war principles, such as those of last resort and reasonable chance of success, have led to, not only a failed initiative, but also to a contemptuous depreciation of American power, resolve and commitment.
July 18, 2018
Had this been an objective analysis of the Bush Doctrine and the theory of “moral democratic realism”, this would’ve been a worthy, valuable read. However, Kaufman is a big proponent of the Bush administration’s ideology. Instead of objective analysis, you get a pitch which, in Kaufman’s defense, is pretty much implied in the title of the book. Still, the concept of moral democratic realism is flawed. The entire field of international relations looks down on it as a fringe, pseudo-theoretical field and for good reason.
This book is still valuable though. If you want to understand the doctrine behind the Bush administration, however much it may lack in strategy and overcompensate for in normative prescription, this is a book for you.
This book is still valuable though. If you want to understand the doctrine behind the Bush administration, however much it may lack in strategy and overcompensate for in normative prescription, this is a book for you.
November 4, 2008
This is really a fantastic book. Even if you don't agree with the idea of preemptive war, the history covered in this book is quite enjoyable. (Of course I enjoy most things that poke fun at the UN.) I found the writing to be very articulate. The book does show a lot of praise for Ronald Regan. In fact, if you are looking for an eloquent summary of Regan's good side, this is the book for you.
Read
September 24, 2009Kaufmann makes the case for Bush's strategies and actions, offering a reasoned defense.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews