bush doctrine: right or wrong?

When America’s hyperpower status was challenged by 9/11, the response was the Bush Doctrine. Will it now make the world safe for America? Charles Pena says ‘no’ and makes a clarion call for the US to return to its tradition of putting the homeland first. Philip Bobbitt responds with a passionate justification of America’s need for legitimate pre-emption that can ensure global safety from weapons of mass destruction that can escape into terrorist hands. Their clash brings to the fore Washington’s military, legal, moral and international strategy. What should it now be?

Monday 30th October

Democracy bites

Tom Burgis, 30 October 2006

The Bad Democracy award for October – the last before openDemocracy's grand poll for the year's worst democrat – became the object of Hungarian passion and the target of the country's hackers, reports Tom Burgis.

Thursday 30th March

Bush's security strategy: defend the nation, change the world

Mariano Aguirre, 30 March 2006

The United States's linkage of pre-emption and failed states reflects a shift of rhetoric that leaves untouched the freedom to wage endless war, says Mariano Aguirre.

Monday 23rd February

Rumsfeld v Powell: beyond good and evil

John C. Hulsman, 23 February 2004

Donald Rumsfeld is the neo-conservative architect of war, Colin Powell the cuddly multilateralist. Right? Wrong. Behind the caricature is a titanic Washington struggle far more complicated and interesting.

Wednesday 15th October

Part 5: Networks of power and freedom

Siva Vaidhyanathan, 15 October 2003

Part 5 of The new information ecosystem: networks of power and freedom

Wednesday 17th September

The end of isolationism

Ian Williams, 17 September 2003

Charles Peña, Philip Bobbitt, and John Hulsman and Eric Hamilton alike view America’s good as the world’s gold standard. The age of cosmic debt, climate change, and terror demands a larger vision. The United States needs clarity of mind, public diplomacy, humility – and friends.

Tuesday 8th July

A realist security strategy for the United States

John C. Hulsman and Eric Hamilton, 8 July 2003

What should a National Security Strategy for the United States in the 21st century look like? Two Heritage Foundation analysts see twin dangers in Charles Pena’s focus on homeland security and Philip Bobbitt’s emphasis on alliance-building: isolationism and internationalism. The challenge for the US is to avoid both neglect and overstretch, and to pursue a realist foreign policy that can ensure its global hegemony for centuries to come.

Wednesday 28th May

World or homeland? US National Security Strategy in the 21st century

Charles V. Peña, 28 May 2003

A year after 9/11, the Bush administration articulated a new security doctrine that committed the country to worldwide military intervention in pursuit of democracy. This strange fruit of Wilsonian idealism and neo-conservative ambition is triply misconceived: it will guarantee damaging over-extension of resources, fuel bitter resentment of the United States, and abandon homeland security to the chimera of global control. It is not empire that the US needs, but modesty.

United States security for a new world: a reply to Charles Pena

Philip Bobbitt, 28 May 2003

The US’s national security document of 2002 is a partial answer to the global challenges of terrorism and weapons proliferation. Charles Pena’s critique, by contrast, recommends a disengagement from the world that would entail even greater danger for the homeland. The real US need is to articulate a strategic doctrine that puts military pre-emption in the service of wise politics, alliance-building, and – eventually – a new understanding of international law.