Talk:Bush Doctrine

Hegemon

This article seems less like an encyclopedic entry and more like an editorial essay that portrays the US as a hegemon. I feel that, apart from doing what it should (giving information on what is the Bush doctrine), it also does what it should not (give an opinion on the Bush doctrine). This article does not seem to conform to NPOV, in my opinion. Hari Seldon 03:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Other NPOV dispute, the Taliban line

The line reads as follows:

Although the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan offered to hand over al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden if they were shown proof that he was responsible for September 11 attacks and also offered to extradite bin Laden to Pakistan where he would be tried under Islamic law, their refusal to extradite him to the U.S. with no proof or preconditions was considered justification for invasion. This policy implies that any nation that does not comply with the US instructions concerning their stance against terrorism would be seen as supporting it.

Ok, there are a number of problems with the way this statemet presents information, first:

• The line is unbalanced because it presents no information on how reliable the taliban government was in the event of making promises...
• The line also makes the presumption that the US was unjustified in trying Bin Laden, as if only guilty people go to trial. As I understand law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, and a trial is based on suspicion (not proof) of guilt. The trial serves for the people to prove whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. What the taliban where doing was denying the victimized country of their right to conduct such investigation with the benefit of interviewing the suspect.
• Aditionally, the line also neglects the fact that the atrocity was committed in US soil, not in Pakistan, and thus Pakistan (or Islamic law) would have had no jurisdiction on this crime. Therefore, the request that the Taliban were making of having Bin Laden trialed under Islamic Law was ridiculous!
• If the above was not enough, the paragraph implies that non-compliance with an unreliable government making unreasonable demands qualifies a nation as a "hegemon" or "empire" with an absolutist stance. This, in itself, is unreasonable.
• But what is worse of all is that the paragraph does not have a single source to support any of it. And despite the POV, unbalance claim, and the lack of sources, the line remains!

Unreasonable! Hari Seldon 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I've deleted the contested line. This is my interpretation of the "Be Bold" guideline. I will, of course, not 3RR or start an edit war over this issue, but I hope that this will call attention to the lamentable quality of this editorial (it does not yet deserve the name of "article"). Hari Seldon 04:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

2006 dispute

I can't quite follow what your beef is. The President introduced a new foreign policy stance in June 2002 with these carefully chosen words: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long". The import of this was clear to any student of US foreign policy -- this was a clear shift in emphasis, as many commentators, especially in European

Also, I don' quite see why you feel it necessary to make the point that the Administration considered the Hussein government a threat. Or course they did, no one could possibly argue otherwise. Others (with good justification, it turns out), might argue that Hussein was not much of a threat, but again, all parties must agree that the Bush Administration clearly viewed his government posed a serious threat. The article makes no claim to the contrary, so where's the dispute? Until you can come up with some specific points in dispute, I will remove the disputed tag from the article. --69.228.92.139 21:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Old talk, mostly undated or prior to 2002

Actually a google search will reveal an earlier use of the label "Bush Doctrine" to describe the policy of the United States after September 11th. Don't know what the final title of this "doctrine" will be or if that capital D will stick. Fred Bauder

---

"World domination": I put this in because I don't think there is any doubt, even in the language used, that the US is now aiming explicitely for military domination of the world. According to The Guardian:

Above all, the US will not allow anyone to close the military lead it has established since the Soviet Union collapsed. The document says: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hope of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States." [1]

-- Tzartzam

---

Scary - such arrogance

To be fair, I don't think it's the arrogance of the US state in particular; any state in their position would be similar. But the place for debate is not here. -- Tzartzam

I remove the following material because the link is no good:

• A document prepared by the office of the President which outlines the doctrine entitled, "The National Security Strategy of the United States" can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html.

Now that there is some advocacy of Bush's position within the article it is more balanced; however, restoring balance does not extend to excising the sharp citicism which is also part of the article. User:Fredbauder

Generally it is better to add to talk pages at the bottom:

I took out the references to the New York Times since I think it is better if the only reference is to source documents. The NYT and Guardian comments include interpretations of the Bush Doctrine that may or may not be shared by the Bush Administration or other critics. I could not get to the link that was included, but the white house link worked for me, so I included both. Hopefully one of the two will work.

Let's keep some balance here. "world domination" is clearly a critic's concern, but not a stated part of the policy. The critics view is that if the US can dominate, they will. But that is not clear. Historically, while not perfect, the US has been the best of any country at giving real freedom to the countries that it conquered militarily (Japan, Germany, Philippines, etc.). It is OK to state the critics concern, but not to state that their view is an obvious unstated part of the policy.

You have created an unbalanced article and also removed the link to the wikipedia article on the security strategy itself which contains much more than this. User:Fredbauder However I have to run.

---

The latest revision retores a great deal of deleted material and deletes material which while it may be an accurate description of the ultimate policy goals of American foreign policy (love of freedom) is out of place in the context of a specific war where our allies are more or less the same mixed bag of saints and sinners. I luckily found an opinion article supportive of the doctrine so including the critical articles is less destructive of a neutral point of view. There is an article National Security Strategy of the United States, poorly written, which could use some help, and which has scope for inclusion of the broader goals of United States policy in many areas. I think this article should be limited to the question of a policy of pre-emptive strikes and critiques thereof, pro and con. User:Fredbauder

To the extent that I am representative of the critics, "the ultimate policy goals of American foreign policy (love of freedom) should read "(love of freedom for American shareholders)". Just so you know. -- Sam

---

Can anyone explain why the "Bush Doctrine" is a "doctrine", as opposed to, say, "Some stuff Bush said that one time"? First, "doctrine" seems to imply a good amount of ideological coherence; is it generally accepted that the doctrine at hand is so coherent? Second, does "doctrine" here have negative cannotations? It seems to stir up images in my mind of primitive priests declaring things without any rhyme or reason. But that's probably just me. --Ryguasu

I think that last comment is a common confusion with dogma; doctrine is simply a course of action, a set of beliefs. -- Sam

It is common, whenever a President makes a general statement of US foreign policy, to give it the title of "doctrine". Hence there was a "Carter doctrine" that was the name given to what Carter came up with in response to the seizure of hostages in Iran, and there was a "Nixon Doctrine" which was the justification for his phased withdrawal from Vietname. Presidents don't officially call them a doctrine, but they get that title as a matter of course. soulpatch

Soulpatch, could this description be copied into the list of diplomatic doctrines? It seems a much better explanation than none. --Ryguasu

That's not a bad idea, but the list of diplomatic doctrines includes some non-US doctrines as well, such as the Brezhnev Doctrine and Sinatra Doctrine of the Soviet Union. I wonder if perhaps US presidential doctrines should be split out from the more general list of diplomatic doctrines. Or perhaps not, but in any case that article does need to be fleshed out more than just being a "list". soulpatch

---

There is some opinion that pre-emptive strikes have long been a part of international practice and indeed of American practice, as exemplified, for example, by the Cuban Missile Crisis[2]

Have we always been at war against East Asia, or is this completely backwards? (The linked site is useless, as it demands that I "register" just to read an article. Ff it is intended to provide some kind of reference, I suggest that an alternative be found.) --Brion 05:25 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Links to the New York Times and to Nature do require you to "register"; however, registration consists only of establishing a user name and password; there is no charge or further obligation. I suppose this might be discussed on the mailing list, but I find both sources so useful that the slight inconvenience is worth it. And remember, some of the best publicity Wikipedia ever got was from the NYT.

(It's okay by you that they ask for your name, age, sex, household income, etc just to *read a single article*? Sure, I can lie, but that's not the point. Additionally, children under 13 may not legally register. Doesn't include me, but is that ideal for a reference from an encyclopedia? --Brion)

As to always being at war with East Asia, not the point, but , in fact, suppression of Islamic and Arabic nationalism has been a mainstay of British and American international relations for decades, if not centuries. The Cuban Missile Crisis does seem to fit into Bush's doctrine; Cuba was not at war with the United States, merely trying (abeit in a spectacularly inept way) to defend itself from attack by basing atomic weapons on its territory. The United States engaged in what might be considered acts of war against by blockading the island and boarding and inspecting ships bound for Cuba. This was viewed by the author of the opinion piece as an example of pre-emptive action. I think he was correct. I don't think a principle of international law was thus established, but one might so argue. At any rate it adds some balance to the article which otherwise is just a hatchet job on Bush. User:Fredbauder

Better explain that in the article, then; the United States did not invade Cuba over the issue, and a blockade sounds roughly like the embargo and no-fly zones that have already been imposed on Iraq for some time. So it sounds prety weak as presented... --Brion 20:49 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

Of course, it's lame, but still an act of war as would be the no-fly zones if they were not mandated by the UN. I think the real story here is how useful the notion of a pre-emptive strike has been to war opponents (which I am not); some have even compared the doctrine to Japan's strike on Pearl Harbor. User:Fredbauder

---

I realize I just made some very significant edits to an established article. Here's what motivated me:

• My research shows the term "Bush doctrine" has been used to refer to two different but related doctrines -- so let's flesh that out in the article...
• A full, clean, and simple summary of the full Bush Doctrine was needed (that is, not just preemption but preemption + unlaterilism + strength w/o challenge + goal of spreading democracy). The Hearst Doctrine detour (now gone after a vote for deletion) was responsible for some of the confusion.
• The trajectory of how the doctrine emerged from an quashed Defense Department internal policy guideline to become America's main foreign policy was worth adding (IMHO)
• subtitle headers are great and I felt the article has enough beef to justify inserting them -- so I did.

Whenever this kind of major surgery is done, there's cleanup work to be done later. If something looks askance to my fellow policy wonks, please get out your scalpels and bondo...

technopilgrim 23:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I unilaterally removed the following sentencec clause:

...though the doctrine is in accord with the pre-internationalist theories of war, which respect a nation's sovereign rights but attempt to regulate the conduct of armed conflict through the Laws of war.

The problem is there are a lot of pre-internationalist theories of war -- which one(s) is the author thinking about? The Crusades? Clausewitzian war? The framework of European military treaties in place at the outset of WWI? If the author can link to a Wikipedia article describing the theories he has in mind, he should do so (and perhaps that means he has to write an article). Then we can understand what he is trying to say here. technopilgrim 18:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Initial formulation: correction needed

In the first section "Initial formulation: No distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them", it says:

The immediate application of this policy was the invasion of Afghanistan in early October 2001 after the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan refused to hand over al-Qaida terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.

But that's not entirely correct. The Taliban demanded evidence before handing out UBL and preferred a hand-over to The Hague or any independent country. Bush completely refused any negotiation of such terms. kaotix

I think the United States did not believe the Taliban conditions were offered in good faith; however I know of no documentation to that effect or any that the Taliban were sincere in requesting evidence. Why don't you try editing the article and we'll see what it looks like. Fred Bauder 23:46, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, done, maybe this is a little more neutral given the vagueness of information on the subject. kaotix 03:31, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Name of article

This article was incorrectly moved to Bush doctrine, and I have moved it back to Bush Doctrine. The capitalized form is correct because it is consistent with other presidential doctrines: Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Eisenhower Doctrine, etc. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 13:36, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Both titles are not optimal. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Words "Bush Doctrine" are the words critics use to describe 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. The title of the article shouldn't be a slang word created by critics. The title should be The National Security Strategy of the United States of America' This whole article is teeming with POV stuff like that. --DjSamwise 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Per the National Security Act of 1947 the President must send to Congress "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America". Thus every administration creates its own version of this document. "Slang" is an unnecessarily perjorative term for you to use. More often than not, broad Presidential policy initiative become known by informal names, not by the the names of the underlying documents used to implement those policies -- thus we refer to "Reaganomics", "Wilsonian Diplomacy", "New Deal", etc. This is the power of the English language and you can't fight it. "Bush Doctrine" has 1.4 million google hits -- whether anyone likes it or not, this is the name that has become attached to these policies. --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The name of this policy is clearly called titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America", not some name that critics gave it, and the article title should represent that. You can still create a section on how it is sometimes referenced as the "Bush Doctrine", but it doesn't belong in the article title. Deckm70 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more. It is not a statement of support for the President's foreign policies, but rather, an observation of the fact that "The Bush Doctrine" is not a phrase used by anyone but critics, and as such, is inherently POV. Unlike "doctrines" such as "the Monroe Doctrine," which are universally referred to as such, and thus merit their own articles bearing such a heading, this article does not merit its current, pejorative (even trivializing) title, nor does it merit article status. The content of this article urgently needs to be merged back into a larger article about American foreign policy under the Bush administration. -69.47.186.226 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Status of Enemies

Would it be productive to include a section on the legal status of state defined terrorists under the Bush Doctrine. Some has been written on, for example, the contrasting British and American definition of alleged terrorists. For example, if my understanding is correct, the British system recognizes terrorism and similar acts as crimes, and as such there is little ambiguity about the legal status of the accussed. (this has not barred miscarriages of justice, mind you). Whereas since combatants of a rogue state are not of equivalent legal status as those arrested for such crimes, hence the somewhat confusing states of many enemy combatants. L Hamm 15:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. Remmber that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I think we would be better served, if this were to be included, to refer to the Axis of Evil as described by President George W. Bush. This approach removes bias from the article.

Cite, please

- "Bush declared at West Point, 'America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish (etc)'"-

-- What's the cite for this, please? - 20 November 2005

The text can be found at the White House website [3]. --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The text can also be found at the BBC website [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmccready (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes to section on Wolfowitz Doctrine

This posting applies to the [[Bush_Doctrine#Paul_Wolfowitz_and_the_Defense_Planning_Guidance_text_of_1992] section of this article. Please note that I changed the text

initial revision

to

initial "final draft" version

The justification is that the document that was leaked was indeed the "final draft" and was intended for release and processing through the normal channels within the DoD for a Defense Planning Guidance document. Stating that it was the initial revision can construe that the document was still under development and incomplete. This is confusing because the document was re-written which can be legitimately called both a "revision" and a new "version". However, because business terminology in this day and age sets a higher hierarchical value to a "version" than a "revision", I thought that this was more clear. Also, quoting the text "final draft", I believe, made the issue, that it was re-written after it was considered final, more clear.

Please give any feedback on this (especially if you change it again).

Thanks
Daniel Santos 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yea...

And I added a link to the article on the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

Daniel Santos 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Critics" of the Bush Doctrine

It seems unnecessarily uninformative to refer to critics of US foreign policy (according to the Bush Doctrine) merely as "critics", since the these US policies are in conflict with the UN Charter — and hence the core of International Law. By using the word "critics" instead of pointing out this fact, might lead readers to believe that there actually exists a real controversy over the legality concerning e.g. "pre-emptive strikes" (read: preventive strikes or anticipatory self-defence) or that the critics represent something other than the vast majority. Article 51 of the UN Charter is very clear that preventive strikes are not legal (see e.g. Malanczuk, P., pp. 311-314, "Akehurt's Modern Introduction to International Law" (7th Ed.)). So instead of saying that "critics" take issue with X, Y, or Z of the Bush Doctrine, say that X, Y, and Z of the Bush Doctrine are incompatible with International Law. That seems to me to be a more accurate and informative representation. PJ 15:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• So much for the moral high ground of Nuremburg and Tokyo (I guess Doenitz was right). The unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation and the toppling of its government (which did not pose a threat to the U.S. or the world community) does not count as aggression? OOPs, sorry, no WMD? The needless deaths of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis (and thousands of Coalition troops)? Maybe those Germans were right after all - it was simply the "revenge of the victors". In this case however, that revenge is a little bittersweet. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This entry appears to either be a copy of, or others have copied from here, various other online references (eg answers.com, reference.com).

The entry contains mostly criticism of the supposed doctrine instead of just the facts. The criticism appears to be centered on anti-Bush rhetoric and innuendo.

I agree. This article needs to be sanitized. -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -Author of Deleted Articles 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanatized... or euthenized. this needs to be pretty much totally wiped out and rewritten from a npov perspective. Thanatosimii 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article is clearly biased. It needs to be rewritten from a NPOV perspective. Deckm70 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY. The bias is overwhelming.

NOT JUST BIASED, BUT ALSO FALSE. Not only is the bias overwhelming, it leads to many factual inaccuracies. It is not correct that the U.S. acted unilaterally. This is simply false. There were a huge number of countries that actively supported and participated in the war with Iraq. Perhaps a list of the countries that supported the war should be listed (at the very least). What they really meant was it was not supported by socialist governments in Germany and France. Socialist governments that were since THROWN OUT by their people and replaced with pro-U.S. governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.250.210 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Preemptive war or preventive war

The Bush adminstrations speaks about "preemptive war", but the doctrine is about preventive war. The consepts easily get mixed up. Petri Krohn 07:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"In discussions of this aspect of the Bush Doctine, the terms "preventive war" and "pre-emptive war" are sometimes used interchangeably, although they represent very different strategies. A pre-emptive war occurs when a state believes an attack to be imminent (for example, the enemy is gathering a large number of troops on their border) and launches an attack to get the first strike. A preventive war, on the other hand, occurs when a state launches an attack on another state that is not currently a threat , but may become one at some point in the future. By these definitions the 2003 war in Iraq was waged as a preventive measure." - when the war began, the assertion was that there was indeed a "current threat" and not merely one which "may become one at some point in the future".... by the writers own definition then, saying that the 2003 war was a "preventitive" one rather than a "preemptive" one is wrong. It may have been so in the authors opinion, but the stated doctrine which was being followed was one of preemption, rather than prevention.

• Regardless of the definition, the U.S. altered the historical course of its military responses with the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. had never in its history launched a preventive or preemptive war, preferring the moral high ground of only responding with force to an attack upon itself (even in the specious case of the U.S./Mexican War). The shift of political and military power to the presidency which occurred during the Cold War did not disappear as part of the peace dividend. The Korean and Vietnam conflicts had been fought as part of the Cold War international treaty systems (and, since they were not declared wars, were not legally classified as such). This fundamental alteration in control of the military (from the Congress to the presidency) has not seemed to bother the American public (which is not noted for its perception of its own history) very much, but it ought to bother the rest of the world enormously. Does it make any difference that the "facts" and assumptions upon which the Iraq War was launched proved to be specious? It ought to. We used to hang foreign officers for the same thing. RM Gillespie (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The description in the introduction correctly described the Bush Doctrine's use of preventive war (although it was mislabeled as preemptive war). This is also a controversial doctrine (see February 15, 2003 anti-war protest). Uwmad (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to foreign policy

You may want to include this:

COUNTRIES large and small are rejecting President Bush's foreign policy by intimidation, and are banding together to counter the US superpower.[5]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an article on what the "Bush Doctrine" is, is a Kosher place to recruit troops to any side of the argument. PALEASE stay nuetral in your wiki writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias --DjSamwise 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

adding disputed tag

I went ahead and tagged this article. First off, if the article is about a policy the title should be the policy name, not the slang term created by critics.. also in just about every section you can find misnomers and negative wording that disaply a clear bias. Stick to the facts, don't do your own research, use neutral language. This thread needs work. --DjSamwise 01:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any alternative name in common usage, and I can't help but notice that you don't provide one either. The policy was issued under the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America" but as that title does not distinquish it from the NSS documents issued by prior administrations, that name will not do. Note that "Bush Doctrine" has 1.4 million google hits, so the present name is very likely what folks will use when trying to find this information. You have labelled the article as disputed but failed, as above, to provide any concrete improvements, or specific points to dispute. This is not enough reason to consider the page disputed and I am removing the tag. --69.228.92.139 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The name of this policy is called the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America", not what critics named it, the "Bush Doctrine". Deckm70 19:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Strength beyond Challenge" not policy until 2002

I have removed the sentence claiming the "Strength Beyond Challenge" plank was official US policy since the end of the Cold War. As I understand, the other section of the article has it right when it says that Paul Wolfowitz proposed this as policy but it was rejected by President George H.W. Bush. If someone can find a reliable source to the contrary, please provide it here or in the article & re-instate the sentence --69.228.92.139 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting spurious "10 point summary" of Bush Doctrine

I removed the nicely formatted 10 point summary of the Bush Doctrine that someone else had already flagged as lacking citations. Is this list a hoax? Take a closer look at some of the items that are said to define the Bush Doctrine: "10.) Active promotion of American economic interests around the world"? There's nothing particularly Bush-like about that -- what President in the last 100 years has not been active in promoting American economic interests abroad???? "3.) International conflicts can be resolved through the use of military force when diplomacy fails"? Again, there's nothing particularly Bush-like about this -- this is just a statement of a political reality that has been recognized for millenia. When smoking the peace pipe fails, out come the war clubs. Nothing novel introduced by the Bush administration in this. "5.) End of the policy of nuclear mutual deterrence". Granted, one might argue that mutually assured destruction plays a relatively less central role in US foreign policy than it has in the past. That doesn't mean the policy is ended, it means that terrorism occupies a relatively higher position in the President's thinking (as it should). Maybe one day a scientist makes a breakthrough and the original "Star Wars" missle defense suddenly becomes viable. Then we might speculate that the Bush administration would, or would not, abandon the MAD policy. In the meantime, the policy is not changed.

The more I read this summary the more I suspect it is a hoax -- and out it goes unless someone can find some support for it. --69.228.92.139 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine Applied to Russia?

I question that the Bush doctrine has been applied to the Russian Federation in the same way that it has been applied to Iran, Iraq and North Korea. One of the final paragraphs of this article implies heavily that it has. Unless proof can be found, I intend to delete the mention of Russia from that section. --MaRoWi 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy statement is straight forward

Here is the link to the policy document issued in 2002.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

The statement was updated in March 2006. It is available here

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/

And yes, both Russia and China are named as states that come under this policy 'watch'. both in fact are designated as being under the aegis of new smaller nuclear weapons also known as tactical nukes, bunker busters, star chars and nature's own. Read the plan, or read someone who has >>

Executive Intelligence Review March 2003

U.S. PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE PLAN

"No longer is the first use of nuclear weapons a taboo. "

In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program. For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.

++++++++++++++

Holland is worried ?

Come on. doesn't anyone read ? There aren't even any links in the article to the policy, until the above comment to this dicussion posted the policy links. And there are all these questions and debates about the policy, how infantile. It so simple. No one is threatened who isn't making threats. How difficult is that. The Dutch have no need to lose sleep. They are a friendly nation with strong ties to the US. No one in the world is concerned about any EU nation. They are productive stable, happy people willing to move into the future peacefully. The Russians aren't so sure they want to join the party. The Chinese remain a question mark. The Koreans have stated their hostility and don't mind showing a bristling threat here and there -- they fire missles at Japan! Do you want to be in that flight path ? Of course every Muslim nation is up for review and many are not very convincing when asked their intent. Is this a tough lesson or is there just some conern that the only place in the world where a tyrant cannot take dictator powers, that being the US where the system assures against it, is looking out for the safety of everyone, including itself? Few grasp this simple tenet, since few rise to the height of real power -- it falls to the strongest, not to use power, but to restrain the use of it. If the US wanted to overrun the world, wouldn't we be all over Mexico? South America? Canada can be taken in an afternoon. Cuba ? Do we really like Castro so much that we don't go into Havana because he says not to? Africa would be a simple take down. Fools expound imperialism using its 4 or 5th definition, overlooking definitions 1 thru 3.

The policy could not be stated more clearly. There will continue to be opposition until the US surrenders to whoever wants us >> gays, mexicans, who ? What you liberals are asking for is that the US destroy its arsenal and send the militia home to momma. Then what? Chant for the rest of the world to follow suit and we all enjoy a Carribean cruise? If there isn't a Disney resort near you, let us know, we will build one where you can live out your fantasy life. The bad guys don't embrace your vision. When they do, we won't see people in prison camps, starving because there is a despotic dictator that thinks he rode into the world on the sun chariot. Kim ILL, and I do mean sick, has only one objective, to stay in power so his daddy will think well of him. He will run those people into the ground of his own oblivion until he finds his big block of granite and stature carved with eternal honor to his name. Look at the Korean pennisula in this view and tell me everything is happy in the magic kingdom.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm

Here is a look into the darkness (for those who can read)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18249.htm

There is more light in the Africa. You have to go to the Himalyas, the Amazon or the Sahara desert to find so little evidence of civilization. There is more happening in the Australian outback than in North Korea after sun down.

http://www.darksky.org/images/sat.html

• A perfect example of the American intellect at work. Unfortunately, they are in Washington too. RM Gillespie (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Muscular ?? Not Neutral, showing bias here

No one wants to hear about the MUSCLE. . . this is a subtle bias in viewpoint. There is nothing in the policy that can be construed as even exercising, much less that there is or will be muscle. Here is one example of how the bias spills into the text. The word Empire is carefully disguised in a perfectly accepted usage. But the anology lacks veracity, moreover this point is irrelevant.

This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together

What can be said is this:

The title should state the word offense. For example, Broader definition of DOD includes offense

This topic should be edited ( example follows) The policy that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower. This resembles a British Empire policy before World War I that their navy must be larger than the world's next two largest navies put together.

"United States has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge". This is an update of the deterrance stance held throughout the coldwar, as well as a play on the leverage won which places the US as the dominant military force on the planet. In the words of the President, "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge thereby, making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

++++++++++++

This is unlike any bygone empire. This is a new world with a new world leader. The world has never known a powerful military restrained in its use becuase it is not at the whim of a single man. This leader has risen to power on the basis of a declaration of human dignity and freedom. The US has won those rights for itself. It had to fight for them with those who oppose those rights. The fight continues, now around the globe because our enemies take aim at us from afar, have refuge in distant lands, yet use our freedoms as their only claim and means to attack -- we do not hold that right as self-evident. We believe we are justified to remove that right from others who vow to hold to it for only one purpose -- killing. This is nothing new to civilization which has long held the standard that much is tolerated until one crosses the line of harm to another and that is where individual choice and liberty become constrained. Nothing new here.

I see pure insanity to imagine that the work of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin, Adams and other brillant men is replaced by the ill-will of one cave dweller whose highest virtue is death. Alongside the ideal of 'give me liberty or give me death', voluntary suicide lacks any substance except as the irrational dementia of the insane. Tell me this is not a lunatic speaking: "scores of virgins await you in heaven". This surpasses gullibility. I wonder what the heavenly term would be for 'guess again, pee wee'. That is one circus I want to see -- the looks on the faces of those standing in line to hear their buddies up ahead try to explain that they killed innocent people by willfully vaporizing their own brains and they are waiting to be rewarded with unlimited sex. I can't imagine a more entertaining and hillarious exposition of stupidity. I certainly don't envy the guy whose name gets mentioned repeatedly when asked 'who told you that?'. Its the 'in the name of Allah' part that may become a bit uncomfortable to witness. I may want to scoot out before the final anhilation into oblivion occurs. I wouldn't wish that on even the worst creature here, though it will be enjoyable to see the rat come face to face with reality. I wouldn't miss that curtain call.

Pre-emptive vs. preventive again

This article states: "The right of self-defense should be extended in order to authorize pre-emptive attacks against potential aggressors cutting them off before they are able to launch strikes against the US". For me, it seems to be a clear contradiction with the article pre-emptive war, where it says: "A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war." If the right of self-defense is extended, than that means extended towards "preventive", not preemptive, right? And there is a distinction between a "potential aggressor" and an "imminent offensive or invasion", I would say. --Schreibvieh 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• A more correct reading would be "we will attack anyone we want to, wherever we want to, whenever we want to, and for whatever reason we want to, and there is not a GD thing that the UN or the rest of the world can do about it. There is no such thing as a sovereign nation (unless we classify it as being so) and there is no such thing as an independent foreign policy (unless we stipulate it as such). The reasons we give should be sufficient for the rest of mankind (even if those reasons turn out to be wrong and cause the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people). So saith Caesar" RM Gillespie (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See The War on Democracy. Scierguy (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Military superiority

The quote's usable, but there's still no adequate definition of military superiority. Is it as complicated as/is it related to Command of the sea or Air superiority? If so, it warrants its own article and a link. If not, expound further on the phrase here. Note: Made similar request in Wikipedia:Requested Articles. MrZaius^talk 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine

Speak incomprehensibly and hit someone with a stick.

This is, obviously, a joke, though in some ways accurate. It would be fun to put it in the article, but only if we put it in as a joke. We would also have to make sure it didn't make the article less nuetral. What do you guys think?

This article seems fundametally flawed to me, as "Bush doctrine" is taken as a term that is generally understood. There is no attempt to indicate where the usage of the term comes from, or who uses it, whether it is scholarly or not. Less than half the external links even use the phrase "Bush doctrine" (I added one more, to make a start). Who coined the term? Is it widely used? BobFromBrockley 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No one uses it in a non-pejorative sense, and even as such, it is rarely, if ever, used. The fact that an encyclopedic article bears such a heading is regrettable.

To whoever anonymously suggested inserting the phrase, "Speak incomprehensibly and hit someone with a stick": since when are encyclopedias repositories for "jokes"? Since when is the validity of a statement in an encyclopedia determined by how "fun" it would be to "put it in the article"? If you think making jokes about people is fun, by all means, put those jokes in your own, private writings. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. This article was unnecessary and unencyclopedic from the start; now it is becoming Wikipedia's new sandbox in which for people to try out their "fun" jokes. This is perhaps one of the worst articles in all of Wikipedia, not only in terms of its current content, but also its sheer premise. No rewrite will ever fix such a fundamentally flawed article.

As I am not a dedicated editor, I am not well-versed in the deletion procedures. However, I strongly recommend that this article be deleted, and whatever neutral and purposeful content it contains (if any) be merged back into an appropriate article on the Bush administration's foreign policy. -69.47.186.226 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to links are now much better. But still noone has said anything about the term and its usage. Who coined it? Does Bush use the term, or is it simply a term of abuse? BobFromBrockley 13:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Friends of Bush in the United States use this term with admiration, and his opponents use it with scorn, but everyone (with the possible exception of the Administration itself) uses it. The term is here to stay. Like "Truman Doctrine," it was coined by newsmen -- hard to tell by whom precisely, because so many started using it simultaneously. Unfortunately, this coinage took place twice, with two different meanings: (a) Harboring terrorists is the same as terrorizing (late 2001 as a prelude to invading Afghanistan); and (b) The United States has the right to preventatively attack any nation perceived by the president as a potential threat (middle to late 2002 as a prelude to invading Iraq). Meaning (a) is rather pedestrian, while meaning (b) is revolutionary and represents the crossing of the Rubicon, the end of the American republic, the end of international law, etc.

This term is seldom used with meaning (a) any more, as the other meaning is so much more sexy. For better or worse, Dubya will surely be remembered as the patron saint of Preventative War policy in the United States. Paul 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't have any specific references for this but it seems to me the criticism section is missing some key criticism often made. Specifically, the "with us or against us" mentality is seen as simplistic and viewing the world in black and white rather then shades of grey. For many, it's a childish POV and not one for adults. Another criticism is of the apparent idea that supporting the war on terrorism means handing over people to the US without due cause (since Afghanistan had to hand over Osama without evidence of his involvement in terrorism), especially given that these people are apparently not guaranteed a fair trial nor respect for their human rights Nil Einne 14:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section on this article is pitifully lacking in scholarly sources, and the fact that it has been that way since August 2006 suggests to me that it needs to be removed. The whole thing reads partisan. KansaiKitsune 14:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a disaster.

It's constantly filled with unsourced, blatantly partisan statements by ip addresses, and it's been allowed to sit in this state for much longer than it should be. Do it right, or delete it. KansaiKitsune 17:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it requires a complete rewrite. Addhoc 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Nazis?

Its detractors claim that the policy... is indistinguishable in practice from the Nazi doctrine of 'Might is Right'

• I'm no fan of Bush and his foreign policy, but is that Nazi reference necessary? I mean the term "might is right" itself predates Nazism. - Nick15 06:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"might makes right" was Bismarck before it was Hitler. It was during the Unification and expansion of the German EmpireSenorquigles 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of "might makes right" was first introduced by "AArgh" in his heated debate with "Ghooba" outside the eastern caves of mount kelimonjoro august 4th 64374BC. history records AArgh winning the argument using the classic 'ad clubium' approach whereupon he feasted on the brains of his opponentWdsdsgrth 08:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

War on Terror Timeline

The timeline at the bottom of the article starts with the attacks of September 11 but the terrorist attacks on the US started during the Clinton administration, including the USS Cole, the First World Trade Center and various embassy bombings. Although the US didn't reconize the threat at the time, these attacks were the begining of the War on Terror.Senorquigles 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

economic impact

did the bush doctrine drove US into recession and broke the bank? 9 trillion dollar worth of debt... how much inflation do you need to generate to pay back the interest rate? can bush policy be blame, or is this unavoidable? Akinkhoo (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have saved this page. Do not screw with it.

I've destroyed the rampantly partisan accusations of this being a 'Bush-McCain' doctrine. Wikipedia is not a Democratic attack dog. Do not use it as such.

Palin/Gibson interview

The Bush doctrine came up during Charles Gibson's interview of Sarah Palin. Gibson asked Palin whether she agreed with it, and before answering Palin made him define what he meant by it. Some editors have been posting this here as if she didn't know what it was. It's not a term that has any one specific definition; it generally describes Bush's whole view of world affairs, as Palin said. If Gibson meant to ask her about one specific aspect of it, then it was up to him to specify which one, which he eventually did, and she answered. To claim that this somehow showed Palin's ignorance is highly accurate, but I must refute the claim, as I am obviously a conservative.. -- Zsero (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for partisan defenses of political candidates, either. Your interpretation is no less partisan than the ones you disagree with — and the ones you disagree with are perfectly sourceable, if you take the AP as a source: "In the interview Thursday, Palin appeared unsure of the Bush doctrine...." [6] If it's notable and sourced, it should be in the article. Your own opinion on what she did or didn't mean by her answer shouldn't enter into it. (I might also point out that it's pretty ballsy to post that the Bush Doctrine has no specific definition on the talk page of an article that defines the Bush Doctrine. ;) ) --Jere7my (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Zsero, I'm afraid it looks like you've just been owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.161.9.168 (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article by the author who coined the term "Bush Doctrine", does a great job clarifying the evolution of the terminology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 (Wallamoose (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Well........who got owned by Krauthammer there? He states it was unreasonable for Gibson to just throw out the question "Tell me if you agree with the Bush Doctrine." and then look at her like she's a 'moose hunting rube' when she asks for clarification about which particular facet of it he wants to discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk • contribs)

• The Krauthammer editorial is a work of opinion predicated on the assumption that first useage of the phrase entitles him to some claim of authority over what the phrase has grown to mean since. One would need to assert the superiority of a prescriptive lexion over a descriptive one in order to make that assumption stand, which makes the whole work specious. He owned nobody.

Yes it is an editorial work of opinion - from somebody who's been following the evolution of the term 'Bush Doctrine' since it was first introduced into the public lexicon. My point was since this one of the people who's been 'talking about it' for the past 7 years, he should at least be up to speed as to whether it has had one simple definition in that span of time. Apparently he doesn't believe that.

• Right, that's the premise, but repeating it doesn't make it less specious.

Partisan edits

Since the Charlie Gibson Palin interview, this page has come under partisan attack — from both sides, but I'm going to limit my comments to the edits that reinforce a particular conservative strategy. The conservative talking points, following the interview and already seen on a number of blogs, are "it's not a term with any meaning" and "nobody should be expected to know what a fundamentally meaningless term means", both with an eye toward defending Sarah Palin's apparent lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine. We are already seeing subtle edits like "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase used to describe..." becoming "The Bush Doctrine is a phrase recognized by some to describe..." which, again, gives the impression that it's an uncommon term that people running for high office might reasonably not have heard about, when a Google search readily shows that it is a well-known term of art. I enjoin all editors in good faith (which describes the vast majority of editors here) to be on their guard for edits from both sides that are unsourced, reflect a partisan bias, and sprout up suddenly following a news story. Defining "truth" through bad-faith Wikipedia editing is a political tactic, whether or not any particular edit is made in good faith, and we should watch for it. --Jere7my (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted a sentence suggesting the term is used ambiguously by the media. This point, made under the 'criticisms' header, was left without any citation or support. 76.171.132.162 (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the liberal talking point is going to be 'The Bush Doctrine has only meant one thing since the term was introduced, then this Wiki entry should have no problem letting us know what that one meaning is.

I should also like to point out that Jere7my is absolutely correct that the Bush Doctrine has been talked about extensively the past 7 years since it's believed that Krauthammer introduced this phrase into the popular media. And that KRAUTHAMMER has been one of those doing the talking about it in that time. So if anybody would know that the term 'Bush Doctrine' has essentially only one meaning since 2001, Krauthammer would. Yet he obviously does not define the term thusly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.212.137 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Should the Palin interview be included?

I added a brief, sourced note about it. I think it is notable by virtue of being, well, widely noted, but I'm happy to abide by consensus, if one can be reached. (Incidentally, User:EHSFFL2010 has violated Wikipedia:3RR in removing the section four times. I replaced it three times, which is all I'm allowed to do. Note that EHSFFL2010's account was created an hour ago, apparently solely to edit this article.) --Jere7my (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the latest Palin news is notable, but it does nothing to add to any understanding or discussion of Bush Doctrine. It may belong on Sarah Palin or the John McCain presidential campaign article (or whichever article is catch-alling the pigs-with-lipstick stuff.) You and EHS are both over 3RR, so please stop reverting even if its the Wrong Version of the article. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, and I'm signing off. (I hope you're not counting my Sun Dang reverts against me, though!) --Jere7my (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Like guyzero, I don't believe the information about the Palin interview belongs in this article. Would we put a paragraph about the Palin interview in an article about NATO? An article about ANWR? She addressed those issues as well. The interview is notable in the Sarah Palin article, maybe, but not here.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with guyzero, and from her interview it was also clear that she was trying to clarify, while being able to recite some of the central ideologies of the neoconservative and Bush ideology. Weasel words are not a sustainable reference on historic events or information. Scierguy (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It would actually seem more significant to the 2008 campaign article than to her personal biography. So I'd recommend starting there. My question is - what does any inclusion here add to a reader's understanding of this term or doctrine? At first glance it would appear to add only that the term is used in limited circles and not widely known. Ho hum. Not particularly important. GRBerry 15:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I attempted a token reference to the article (look in the article history for it) that avoids speculation and taking sides... I think the story is big enough that keeping a mention out of the article at this point is ridiculous, and I'd rather have a simple mention go in than the pseudointellectual warring. --Rahga (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Gibson's question of Palin's response are particularly relevant to this article. Back in 2002 the Doctrine received considerable discussion. By comparison this recent interview didn't shed any light on the doctrine or how it's seen today. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could one of you Wikipedians add a citation to this article and its relevant contents? It's by the author who originally coined the "Bush Doctrine" terminology and clarifies the meaning and evolution of the term. THANKS!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Would people please shut-up already about how every irrelevant occurrence of Wikipedia subjects need to be included? Would you mention Sarah Palin in an Article about Moose? No. Just because the question was asked last night doesn't mean the interview has any business in this article. I swear Wikipedia is getting a little stupid.

Rewrite of lead section

I have undertaken a rewrite of the lead section for clarity and accuracy. I believe this is a neutral and well-cited statement of the Bush doctrine. I recognize that it is a bit bold to undertake a big rewrite of the lead at a time when this article is receiving a lot of attention, but I think this is an improvement. If you beg to differ, please comment here instead of edit warring in the article.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reads much better, clearer than the original in my opinion. It needs refs for each claim (used to justify invasion, policy of preemptive war, etc.) regards, --guyzero | talk 08:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

User:EHSFFL2010 is engaged in an edit war to state that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine," but the citation she or he provides is just a link to the document, without evidence that it is called the "Bush Doctrine." Elsewhere I have seen the 2002 NSS cited as the definitive Bush Doctrine. User:EHSFFL2010, could you please provide a citation? Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is not correct, I never stated it as the official "Bush Doctrine", but as the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.My link clearly includes the concept of the Bush Doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The text added contends that the NSS of 2006 is official recognized by the White House as being the Bush Doctrine. The link to the TOC of the document does not seem to contain anything backing up that claim. --skew-t (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

EHSFFL2010, Thank you for commenting here on the talk page. That's the way we do things around here, instead of edit warring in the article. My apologies for misunderstanding your edits. I thought you were suggesting that the 2006 NSS is the official "Bush Doctrine." Instead, you seem to be suggesting that there is no official "Bush Doctrine," only a set of foreign policy principles that Bush has embraced. That's true to a certain extent, and I believe the current introduction makes that clear without your addition. However, it's also true that the term "Bush Doctrine" is a widely used term recognized by foreign policy scholars, journalists, etc. So it's not really true to say there is no Bush Doctrine. I'm not sure how the sentence you keep adding improves the article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just found this section. My argument is that the Bush Doctrine is not recognized by any foreign governments or our White House. Adding "The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006" clarifies the Bush Doctrine Concept. My link has all the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it.

That's an argument that I don't believe belongs in this article. It doesn't matter if the White House doesn't officially recognize the term "Bush Doctrine." Others recognize it, they gave it a name, ergo it exists. If you think it's important that this article states that the White House doesn't recognize the term, you need to provide a citation for that and to find a better way of phrasing it so that it fits in the article. It's true that your link does have the concepts of the Bush Doctrine included in it, but so does the citation to the 2002 NSS document which is already referenced in the introduction and is widely recognized as being the "original" statement of the Bush Doctrine. So it's not clear to me why you think it's necessary to include the 2006 document here. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:06, 12

September 2008 (UTC)

The 2006 article is the latest Strategy while the 2002 is not updated. If anything, the 2002 should be deleted

Can you please provide a citation -- for example, a newspaper article referring to the "Bush Doctrine" -- that shows that the 2006 strategy is a more relevant document than the 2002 strategy? Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not have to show the 2002 document is more relevant just that it exist and is different thant the 2006.

I have changed the last paragraph to read, "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were codified in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002, and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine. The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006," with a link to the new document. Will that do? By the way, please sign your talk page comments by typing four tildes after your comment: Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Commendable rewrite and effort. I think that the central ideologies of the Bush Doctrine may also intertwine with the neoconservatism article. The most central and controversial part of the doctrine is the question of foreign interventionism, and this is the one which have also set off a long trail of other articles - low intensity conflict, Effects-Based Operations, War on Terrorism, Axis of evil and so on. It seems a large undertaking to structure all the controversy and implications, practical policy uses and the fall out from these policies summed up as the Bush Doctrine. Hopefully we will be able to add some bits and pieces, while later thoroughly referenced articles can be created to fairly reflect the complex topic. Current events are also adding to more controversy and no doubt future books and analytic articles from renowned authors. Scierguy (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Northwesterner1, I've been reverting your changes to the intro, not realizing that this rewrite was a conscious effort and not just the random byproduct of a lot of edit warring. I still think the original intro was better in one important way: it clarified the order of the meanings, i.e. that the Bush Doctrine started as being about harboring terrorists before getting the additional meanings. Would it be possible to have the rewrite incorporate this information? Korny O'Near (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It got a little confusing around here with all the edit wars, I know, and this talk page could use a cleanup also, as we have related discussions going on in different places. I see your point, but I disagree about the order of emphasis. I think the genesis of the idea is important. But I think it's more important to use the first paragraph to highlight the most important element of the Bush Doctrine (preventive war) and its most important use (the Iraq War). In other words, I think a clear statement of the term is more important than a chronological evolution of the term. In my version, the statement comes first, the chronology comes second. Not a big deal, just a question of emphasis... However, I will hold off from future edits to the intro. Northwesterner1 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Northwesterner1 is in violation of 3RR. You have deleted numerous users posts. Even if you disagree, you should not delete more than 3 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHSFFL2010 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my edits, and I don't believe I've violated 3RR; if I have, it was unintentional. In fact, I've actively tried to engage you in asking you to come to this talk page. If you think I've violated 3RR, please provide diffs and feel free to report me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Broad policy set or specifically limited to pre-emption?

This edit changes the definition of the Bush Doctrine and limits it to pre-emption only. Two problems. (1) The Bush Doctrine includes a rationale for preventive war, not preemptive war, which was the policy of previous presidents. That's a key difference. (2) The citations provided in the opening section, especially the NYT editorials, clearly define the "Bush Doctrine" as something more than just the policy of preventive war -- it's a broader set of policies marked by increased unilateralism, etc. I think this edit should be reverted. Northwesterner1 (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I reverted it. If someone wants to change the focus of the article that dramatically, please take it to the talk page first. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You reverted more than this one edit -- you also reverted my revisions of the opening paragraph as described above. I have restored the version I feel is most accurate, and we can discuss any changes. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

See also sectiom

Can this section be trimed by including the links in the main article or adding explaination for why they are relevant. The section was listed twice so I combined them. Thank you, --Tom 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting POV "Controversy" section

"Speculation suggests" does not belong in Wikipedia. Nor does "According to the dictionary definition..." belong on this page; the dictionary definition has nothing to do with the way the term is actually used. Finally, the linked source does not say anything about "Many Americans". The Bush Doctrine has a very real and useful definition, as used by the press for six years now, as has been sourced elsewhere (and as made evident by a Google search). Suggesting that it doesn't really have a definition is exactly the partisan POV editing I was warning about above, and reflects conservative talking points that were invented in the wake of the Sarah Palin interview. --Jere7my (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacob Weisberg, in his book "The Bush Tragedy," actually identified six Bush Doctrines:

• Bush Doctrine 1.0 was Unipolar Realism (3/7/99--9/10/01);
• Bush Doctrine 2.0 was With Us or Against Us (9/11/01--5/31/02);
• Bush Doctrine 3.0 was Preemption (6/1/02--11/5/03); Bush Doctrine 4.0 was Democracy in the Middle East (11/6/03--1/19/05);
• Bush Doctrine 5.0 was Freedom Everywhere (1/20/05-- 11/7/06);
• and Bush Doctrine 6.0 (11/8/06 to date Thursday, September 11, 2008) is the "absence of any functioning doctrine at all." <national review online>

[7] 217.83.156.152 (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The National Review is hardly an unbiased source. Naturally they are pushing the "it doesn't really mean anything" talk point. --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be watched closely. It appears that many Republicans and Palin supporters have taken to redefining the phrase "Bush Doctrine" in an attempt to justify her lack of knowledge on the subject in her interview with Charles Gibson; when she gave the wrong answers, instead of fessing up she didn't know, they are attempting to repaint what the words mean so that she appears right. This article has defined the phrase just as Charles Gibson did for years before this interview, and this page could use some protection to prevent politically motivated edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to mention that Sarah Palin brought the subject back into the limelight, the proper way to do that would be a properly referenced comment in the opening, NOT an edit war. Cut it out, children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a brief, clear section with three mainstream media sources last night, but it's lost in the sea of edit wars. Good luck to anyone adding it back. ;) --Jere7my (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its quite the edit war, there must be at least 10 people editing it back either way —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected the article; if I'm reading the history right two of those IP editors are somewhere above 10RR on the page, and I see other non-established editors edit warring in the history. If another admin with more time to spare wants to sort this out and block the appropriate parties, I won't object to a lowering of the protection. GRBerry 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Danke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.19.106 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems the controversy will not blow over by itself. The possible politicizing of including a controversy not pertinent to the Bush Doctrine, but how someone are not familiar with the Bush Doctrine seems like a basic POV. I think we are seeing how this will result in more help for the editorial control becoming needed. It is contentious because it is seen as "political editing". Constructive discussion would be ideal until a consensus can be reached. Scierguy (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign interventionism

The earlier linking to the the central neoconservative ideology of foreign interventionism controversy was lost from the "depose foreign regimes" phrase. I think this is such a central theme in the controversy about the Bush Doctrine and should be linked as such. Any thoughts? Scierguy (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally remove that wikilink -- it was part of a larger restoration of previous content -- and I'm fine if you want to go ahead and restore it, but I don't think it's particularly useful. Linking to an article on foreign interventionism would be appropriate, but that article doesn't exist (it's currently a redirect). Linking the phrase "depose foreign regimes" to a small section in a larger article on neoconservatism seems beside the point. It seems like an easter egg link to me.Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I noted in Talk:Bush_Doctrine#Rewrite_of_lead_section that this is a central theme that deserves more attention, but also that it is a large undertaking. For the time being, I think we will have to do with a snippet - at least serving some justice. That way it can be further fleshed out and turned into a full article. The paragraph under the article on neoconservative ideology provides something to build on. It can certainly be improved, but is also very controversial and will no doubt result in "some attention". Scierguy (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We should also be careful of any negationism with regard to this subject. I feel I could be able to create a starting article, but it would be much better served by an expert, or a group of editors to balance any article on foreign interventionism. It also plays an integral part to many articles relating to aggressive foreign policy, so it would be easier to isolate into the specific ideology held in the Bush Doctrine and neoconservatism. It is not something new, but with the advent of "the information age", Internet and such increased awareness with media democracy, especially Wikipedia, there is a lot more information and articles being added. Treating the specific neoconservative and Bush Doctrine view on this controversial issue is the easier path to creating an article. If the full historical context of all foreign interventions should be treated, it would no doubt occupy a small/large building of contributors covering history since almost the time we were living in caves. ;-) Scierguy (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re article's mention on HughHewitt.com. (Later): By Charles Krauthammer, too.

Here: "If they had bothered to look, even the Wikipedia could have cured Josh Marshall, Greg Sargent, or Andrew Sullivan of their illusion that there's a single, simple meaning to the term "Bush Doctrine."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's almost as though there was a concerted strategy to muddy up the Wikipedia article just after the Palin interview with just enough vagueness to make her answer seem cogent. Prior to yesterday, any pundit, politician, or presser who was asked "What do you think of the Bush Doctrine?" would have been able to give a concise answer, because it's been a topic of conversation for six years. Today, who knows what it means? --Jere7my (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you're confused. Prior to the edit wars beginning this September (see this revision), the doctrine was related to a number of points, not just (and in fact, not at all) preemption. A quick review of the editors who have changed the description to limit the Doctrine to preemptive war are more liberal. Obviously this is a concerted effort from some left-wingers to make it appear as if Charlie Gibson knew what he was talking about. The article was also posted at CBS, should we suspect a CBS-inspired edit war? Biccat (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note the difference between preventive war and preemptive war. Therein also lies some controversy. Scierguy (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The previous version you link to almost exactly matches the definition my wife gave when I asked her (before she heard about the Palin interview), "What do you know about the Bush Doctrine?" It would have been a great answer for Sarah Palin to give. It matches my sense of the way journalists and pundits have been using it for six years — i.e., first and foremost, as justification for preventive war. I do not quibble with the edits that expand on the Bush Doctrine and make it clear that the doctrine is more than a catchphrase; I quibble with the numerous edits that have tried to insert phrases like "the term has no official meaning, because..." There is nothing wrong with trying to fully define a complicated topic; there is something wrong with trying to make it into such a vague term that nobody really knows what it is, in the service of defending the ignorance of a candidate for high office. (To put it another way: if someone asks me, a candidate for Head Ornithologist of America, "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?" I might reasonably be expected to respond, "An African or European swallow?" It would not be reasonable for me to stall the interviewer until he fed me the definition of "swallow", then tell my supporters to rush to Wikipedia to edit the swallow entry to make it seem like nobody knows what a swallow is.) --Jere7my (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase has been used by journalists and pundits for just about seven years, and that difference of a year captures the issue in a nutshell. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A more appropriate analogy would be if an interviewer asked you "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" To which the appropriate answer would be "What?" I will acknowledge that obviously we were looking at different edits, it appears that both sides of the spectrum were trying to cloud the issue. Political issues aside, the interview with Palin is completely unrelated to the actual definition of the Bush Doctrine. Unless you consider Wiki edit wars "newsworthy." Biccat (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look back through the talk page, you'll see I was the first to say that both sides were being partisan here, and both sides would do well to watch it. That said, something like "The term was brought back into the limelight in Sarah Palin's first interview..." could well be appropriate in the lede. It's certainly newsworthy and sourceable, since the news media has been abuzz about it since last night, and many of the people visiting this page for the first time are doing so because of the interview. If an arguably fumbled answer to a question about the subject of an article has a significant effect on a Presidential race, I certainly think a reference would be appropriate. I'm not going to add it back in, though, because consensus has not been reached, and the arguments for and against inclusion (including mine) strike me as partisan. I disagree that yours is a better analogy, since there are good answers to "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?" (as my wife, a classics professor, showed me last night) and there are no good answers to "What is the air speed velocity of an unladen bird?" The latter is meaningless; the former refers to a term that's in common currency among journalists and politicians, any of whom would've been able to offer some sort of an answer before yesterday. --Jere7my (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's unladen swallow, not bird. And there IS a proper response. "African or European?" :) --too lazy to log in 65.118.118.2 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And now Charles Krauthammer has mentioned it, too.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine vs Official Term - National Security Strategy of the United States of America

The official term recognized by the White House for the concept of the Bush Doctrine is The National Security Strategy of the United States of America of 2006.

I believe this should be included in definition. I want to get consensus.Businesscartpt7 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reference for that? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This information is already in the lede. "The main elements of the Bush Doctrine were delineated in a National Security Council document, National Security Strategy of the United States, published on September 20, 2002,[5] and this document is often cited as the definitive statement of the doctrine.[7][8][9] The National Security Strategy was updated in 2006.[10]" regards, --guyzero | talk 20:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but do you have any evidence that the White House has used the term "Bush Doctrine"? Korny O'Near (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah sorry, misunderstood. Cheney mentioned "bush doctrine" here: [8] and here: [9] Bush here: [10], etc. I think how this information as currently presented in the lede is OK. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I misunderstood - I thought your response was from the original user, Businesscartpt7. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all. The sources that I found above might be useful in further article expansion as Cheney provides his own definition of Bush Doctrine in one of them. cheers, --guyzero | talk 20:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The link for reference 5 ("National Security Strategy of the United States. National Security Council, September 20, 2002") appears to be incorrect. Currently it redirects to the National Security Council homepage rather than to a particular document. I believe the correct link is http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/ Agthorr (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed per comment above. thank you, --guyzero | talk 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Attacks: Questionable Assertion

The very first line in the Overview section states, "The September 11, 2001 attacks were planned and executed by Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that was then based in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan." I question the accuracy and verifiability of this statement. No adequate independent investigation has been performed to substantiate that foreign terrorists, or specifically bin Laden, were the key masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission was charged with the task of investigation, but in practice this is no better than a committee appointed by foxes being tasked to determine who attacked the henhouse. All other reviews performed by government agencies have been incomplete, inconclusive, or not credible due to obvious biases. Key parties in the matter, especially George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have refused to testify under oath on the matter, and (shamefully) no one has obligated them to do so; particularly the Congress of the United States. This statement should be removed, or if not removed, at the very least given references to try to support it. The Original Wildbear (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the FBI, on its most wanted list, does not accuse Osama Bin Laden of the 9/11 attacks. When the FBI was questioned about this, the response was that they have no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Matrixpoint (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the stuff of conspiracy theories. The guy admitted that he did it in an interview.202.212.91.204 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of hard evidence, the quoted statement above about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is a conspiracy theory, even though it is presented as an undisputed fact. At the very least, the statement should read "...were alleged to be planned and executed..." as is normal practice for any criminal act prior to conviction. But the FBI is not even alleging that Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11. Also, there are examples of false claims of credit for terrorist acts. Such false claims can serve the interests of the individual or organization making them even though they are not true. Matrixpoint (talk) 03:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is Rudy Giuliani talking about?

Open this and do a ctrl+f and enter Wikipedia. When did it ever say this? 75.131.193.54 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This vandalism edit [11] sat on the article for 3 days earlier this week. I'll email the former Mayor a link to WP:AIV which is a much better forum to report article vandalism since Hannity probably does not have an admin bit. thanks, --guyzero | talk 01:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias

The word "supposed" in the first paragraph of the article, "...the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States...", gives the sentence an overly skeptical tone. A more neutral word such as "perceived" would be more appropriate. Bws93222 (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference to this article on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Just in case if anyone was curious, this article was mentioned on that show on the night of Friday, September 12, 2008. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive war

The cited National Security Strategy of 2002 states the term pre-emptive war and does not contain the term preventive war. Was this changed recently to make Charles Gibson look bad after he naild Sarah Palin on her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4merrepublican (talk • contribs) 04:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to this that the current version contains a first reference to `pre-emptive war' followed by a second on `preventive war,' seems to me they should match no matter which way it goes. Rruitenberg (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed several times prior to the Palin/Gibson interview (see above: Preemptive war or preventive war and Pre-emptive vs. preventive again). It seems what the White House calls "preemptive war" in regards to the so-called doctrine is more consistient with the Wikipedia definition of "preventive war." Preemptive war as defined by Wikipedia is not a new or controversial policy. This is complicated, but sould somehow be addressed in the lead rather than simply linking "preemptive war". -Columbusness (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Many Versions of Bush Doctrine including Not a Doctrine at all

This article in the Washington Post discusses up to 7 versions of the "Bush Doctrine" including the fact that it's not even a doctrine at all. I think we should include this detail in main definition. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/12/ST2008091203408.html

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Businesscartpt7 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

agreed, and I added the seven versions. The "doictrine" part is of course journalistic invention, not a government statement.Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to clearly point out that the most common meaning of the term is preemptive war. --Sum (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Charles Krauthammer/Wikipedia circular reference on the same day

In an Op-ed piece for the Washington Post ("Charlie Gibson's Gaffe", posted online 9/12/2008) Charles Krauthammer defends Sarah Palin by saying that it is really Charlie Gibson and the New York Times that misunderstand the Bush Doctrine. He points to this Wikipedia article as evidence of his superior knowledge on the subject:

"I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard..."

I'm confused as to why a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist is citing Wikipedia as a source. What is more troubling is that the reference to Krauthammer apparently was added to this article the same day that his column came out and the only sources that cite his definition of a Bush Doctrine are his own articles (now including the aforementioned Op-ed).

I'm not an expert on this subject and I do get the impression that Krauthammer and his writing probably carry enough weight to belong in the article (regardless of how/when it got there), but I don't like this "circular referencing" and I wonder if we're giving him undue weight. Is Krauthammer cited by other historical accounts of the Bush Doctrine? Krauthammer's definition of the Doctrine appears to be distinct from the more common one that is the subject of this article. Would it make more sense to refernece this in the body of the "Overview" section or a section on alternative uses of the term rather than in the second paragraph of the lead section? -Columbusness (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I originally added the Krauthammer reference, and I think it's appropriate, but it has to be used in the proper context. Other editors have changed its context to suggest that Krauthammer "coined the term," and Krauthammer himself changed the context in his column to justify conservative talking points in the wake of the Palin/Gibson interview. The common thread behind all definitions of the "Bush Doctrine" is increased American unilateralism -- and in that respect I think it is okay to give credit to Krauthammer for identifying this unilateralism early in Bush's presidency. But it should not be taken as a "definition" of the Bush Doctrine. It's more like a precursor or a hint of what later emerged as the "Bush Doctrine." I have revised the lead to help situate the Krauthammer article in this context; however, I would also not object if it was removed from the lead and moved lower int he article. Northwesterner1 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Scholars say..."

The sentence beginning "Scholars identify seven different 'Bush Doctrines,'" in the Overview is misleading. The citation for the claim is a September 13th, 2008 Washington Post article by neoconservative journalist Michael Abramowitz. Abramowitz's article does not cite several scholars who identify seven different Bush Doctrines, but rather one Peter D. Feaver, a former National Security Council staff member under President George W. Bush. Mbsq (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbsq (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)