March 8, Finished: March 10, , Revised: March 13, Robert G. It is for these reasons that it should also be a mainstay of every college syllabus dealing with American foreign policy, how you arrive at a coherent policy that works in the interest of the United States and how you maintain these policies internally and externally to achieve security of the United States. Critics should analyze their proposed courses of action to see if their plans will forestall the failures by the Kaufman critique of their anticipated modus operandi, a rigorous standard to meet.
The maxims of Donald M. Moral democratic realism offers a more compelling framework for American grand strategy than the alternatives because it takes due measure of the centrality of power and the constraints [that] the dynamics of international politics impose, without depreciating the significance of ideals, ideology, and regime type. It ground American foreign policy in Judeo-Christian conceptions of man, morality, and prudence that inoculate us against two dangerous fallacies: The precepts of moral democratic realism emerge from the lessons of American diplomatic history.
Kaufman has no angst concerning why America has been targeted by terrorists. It depends upon the gravity of the danger, the probability of its realization, the availability of alternative means and the prospects for success.
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine - Robert Kaufman - Google Книги
It is a key concept of his democratic moral realism, even in a unipolar world with the United States is the only superpower. This concept acknowledges that the United States cannot impose its will throughout the world for intrinsic good or for self-interest because our power is limited and when push comes to shove, it should only be expended in our national interest. Freeing Tibet, something the United Nations could not stop Red China from taking over, is justly beyond our means and capability. We can at best, hope to keep China from using all its force against the Tibetans.
Prudence require that the United States keep its powder ready, dry, and ample to defeat actual, imminent, or gather dangers to vital interests of the Unites States and its pivotal allies. Kaufman sees moral democratic realism as the best very as well a test case for American moral democratic realism. This defacement will leave the world and us vulnerable to having to relearn the mistakes that Kaufman is warning us about by experiencing WWIII.
The United States in the past has always been able to catch up in a late defense of its national interest and security, this time it may not. In this excellent new book, Kaufman describes the Bush approach to foreign policy as the latest example of what he calls "moral democratic realism," an approach he attributes to FDR, Truman, and Reagan as well. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem?
In Defense of the Bush Doctrine
Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, , shattered the prevalent optimism in the United States that had blossomed during the tranquil and prosperous s, when democracy seemed triumphant and catastrophic wars were a relic of the past. Bush responded with a bold and controversial grand strategy for waging a preemptive Global War on Terror, which ha The terrorist attacks of September 11, , shattered the prevalent optimism in the United States that had blossomed during the tranquil and prosperous s, when democracy seemed triumphant and catastrophic wars were a relic of the past.
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 inception: 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. 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.
Hardcover , pages. Published May 11th by University Press of Kentucky. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about In Defense of the Bush Doctrine , please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about In Defense of the Bush Doctrine.
Author Corner
Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Mar 05, Jack D. Riner rated it it was ok Shelves: This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. 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.
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. 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: Kaufman is sorely misguided on a number of other important issues, notably the need to invade Iraq in , 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. If Kaufman had his way the U. His approach is conflictual rather than conciliatory and cooperative.
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: Saddam not only had once possessed WMD, but had used them at home and abroad: 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.
Let us address a few issues in order: 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. 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?