September 11 was said to have "defined" even "transformed" the Bush presidency. It seemed forgotten that Bush had come into office with little interest in and even less knowledge of international affairs. while he admitted during his election campaign, 'I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with foreign policy."(Not even hours) since 9/11 he has as huge foreign policy as possible. (Huberman, 2003, p. xii). On the other hand, within a year, Bush –who as a candidate had said the U.S. should be "humble", presented his dramatic choice to the world, his message was clear: the glob had changed and America would fight back (Albright, 2003, 155). The military intervention that the U.S. led in Afghanistan, scattering al Qaeda and toppling the Taliban reinforced that message. As Albright says (2003) the next steps include: military action to prevent Al Qaeda from finding sanctuary across the Afghan border in Pakistan; then political action to build democratic institutions throughout Afghanistan and ensure that radical elements would not reestablish a foothold there. And third step was enlisting the help of Afghanistan's neighbors-including Iran, Pakistan, and the Muslim countries of central Asia- to forge the most powerful possible coalition against al Qaeda.
Clearly, the goal would be to 1) destroy Bin Laden's network, 2) isolate the rest, and 3) prevent it from putting down new roots.
In 2002 Bush adapted an approach which had unwanted effects. In his state of the union address Bush focused not on the nation-building in Afghanistan, but on the so-called "axis of evil"-Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It seems after 9/11 the U.S. began to exercise its power, particularly in the Middle East to "redraw the map" in its own perceived interests. September 11 brought to the force the most aggressive' right-wing elements in the defense and foreign-policy apparatus-those who believed the U.S. should freely impose her power.
To achieve these goals, division of budget changed completely; War handed Bush a virtual blank check. Old glory was printed in the cover of Bush's first post-9/11 budget proposal and it was all billed as a vital to national security-from budget-busting tax cuts, attacks on unions, oil-drilling in Alaska national wildlife refuge, and a massive military spending spree to an enormous expansion of presidential powers and broad curtailments of Americans ' civil liberties. the president emphasized on America's unilateral intention to maintain "military strength beyond challenge". After 9/11, in 2002, the U.S. military budget was larger than the world's next fifteen largest combined. Its one-year defense spending increase alone was larger than the entire military budget of Britain or Russia (Albright, 2003, 156). To go with their out of control military buildup, U.S. adapted a national security doctrine that was radical in its assertion of U.S. prerogatives. In his national security strategy, the president asserted the right to attack foreign nations, even in absence of an imminent threat; if the U.S. just suspects that anyone might one day take an action against her.
Thus their intention was clear; they decided to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, with or without the cooperation or approval of the U.N. or approval of their closest allies. Destroying Saddam's regime, which was told threatened U.S., was a sudden and urgent action which has done by an extravagant extrapolation of the war on terror. To achieve his goal, the president asked every country to oppose Al Qaeda, although many countries hate terrorism but they were reluctant to be with the United States. Bush's policies and his public diplomacy of describing Iraq and al Qaeda as two aspects of the same threat led many Americans to think definitely that Saddam had been behind the 9/11.
But the tip is that the motives of the U.S. in fighting terror, after 9/11, are not considered sincere. Many people , and not only in Muslims societies, believe that America's real aim are to control oil, defeat Muslims, advance the interest of Israel, and dominate the world (Albright, 2003, 159). By these policies after the 9/11 public opinion became more negative; While in the week after 9/11 public opinions was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the U.S. , within two years, a far different picture had emerge; Majorities in many Muslim countries feared that the U.S. was planning to attack them.
As a conclusion it should be said that Bush's foreign policy led America from 9/11 to invasion some suspicious countries. U.S. also accused some countries which opposed to fighting terror such as Germany and French. All of these have been resulted in the split between Muslims and the United States, given new life to Al Qaeda, and made far more difficult the challenge of defeating international terror. Moreover, resentment and hostility toward U.S. even among the closest allies have been increased.
Fareed Zakaria argues that in the first two years of Bush administration, the U.S. reneged on more international treaties; the president asked congress to authorize a new generation of nuclear weapons to add to the already daunting arsenal of the United States. In fact, After 9/11 he rejected, or undermined the AMB Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the nuclear weapons comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the international criminal court, the convention on banning landmines, the U.N. conference on small arms, and the Kyoto accord on global warming (Huberman cited form Fareed Zakaria, 2003, p. 157) and this is a formula for international anarchy, not domestic security, because it could lead to spiral wars without end.
A major principle that can be used to describe the basis of the U.S. foreign policy is "better to be feared than loved", the American vision is a vision of perpetual war… it is a dismal dream, and an ignoble guide for American foreign policy.
Sources:
Albright, M. (2003). The mighty and the almighty, reflections on America, God, and world affairs. Harper.
Huberman, J. (2003). The Bush –hater's handbook. Nation books. New York.
Clearly, the goal would be to 1) destroy Bin Laden's network, 2) isolate the rest, and 3) prevent it from putting down new roots.
In 2002 Bush adapted an approach which had unwanted effects. In his state of the union address Bush focused not on the nation-building in Afghanistan, but on the so-called "axis of evil"-Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It seems after 9/11 the U.S. began to exercise its power, particularly in the Middle East to "redraw the map" in its own perceived interests. September 11 brought to the force the most aggressive' right-wing elements in the defense and foreign-policy apparatus-those who believed the U.S. should freely impose her power.
To achieve these goals, division of budget changed completely; War handed Bush a virtual blank check. Old glory was printed in the cover of Bush's first post-9/11 budget proposal and it was all billed as a vital to national security-from budget-busting tax cuts, attacks on unions, oil-drilling in Alaska national wildlife refuge, and a massive military spending spree to an enormous expansion of presidential powers and broad curtailments of Americans ' civil liberties. the president emphasized on America's unilateral intention to maintain "military strength beyond challenge". After 9/11, in 2002, the U.S. military budget was larger than the world's next fifteen largest combined. Its one-year defense spending increase alone was larger than the entire military budget of Britain or Russia (Albright, 2003, 156). To go with their out of control military buildup, U.S. adapted a national security doctrine that was radical in its assertion of U.S. prerogatives. In his national security strategy, the president asserted the right to attack foreign nations, even in absence of an imminent threat; if the U.S. just suspects that anyone might one day take an action against her.
Thus their intention was clear; they decided to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein, with or without the cooperation or approval of the U.N. or approval of their closest allies. Destroying Saddam's regime, which was told threatened U.S., was a sudden and urgent action which has done by an extravagant extrapolation of the war on terror. To achieve his goal, the president asked every country to oppose Al Qaeda, although many countries hate terrorism but they were reluctant to be with the United States. Bush's policies and his public diplomacy of describing Iraq and al Qaeda as two aspects of the same threat led many Americans to think definitely that Saddam had been behind the 9/11.
But the tip is that the motives of the U.S. in fighting terror, after 9/11, are not considered sincere. Many people , and not only in Muslims societies, believe that America's real aim are to control oil, defeat Muslims, advance the interest of Israel, and dominate the world (Albright, 2003, 159). By these policies after the 9/11 public opinion became more negative; While in the week after 9/11 public opinions was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the U.S. , within two years, a far different picture had emerge; Majorities in many Muslim countries feared that the U.S. was planning to attack them.
As a conclusion it should be said that Bush's foreign policy led America from 9/11 to invasion some suspicious countries. U.S. also accused some countries which opposed to fighting terror such as Germany and French. All of these have been resulted in the split between Muslims and the United States, given new life to Al Qaeda, and made far more difficult the challenge of defeating international terror. Moreover, resentment and hostility toward U.S. even among the closest allies have been increased.
Fareed Zakaria argues that in the first two years of Bush administration, the U.S. reneged on more international treaties; the president asked congress to authorize a new generation of nuclear weapons to add to the already daunting arsenal of the United States. In fact, After 9/11 he rejected, or undermined the AMB Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the nuclear weapons comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the international criminal court, the convention on banning landmines, the U.N. conference on small arms, and the Kyoto accord on global warming (Huberman cited form Fareed Zakaria, 2003, p. 157) and this is a formula for international anarchy, not domestic security, because it could lead to spiral wars without end.
A major principle that can be used to describe the basis of the U.S. foreign policy is "better to be feared than loved", the American vision is a vision of perpetual war… it is a dismal dream, and an ignoble guide for American foreign policy.
Sources:
Albright, M. (2003). The mighty and the almighty, reflections on America, God, and world affairs. Harper.
Huberman, J. (2003). The Bush –hater's handbook. Nation books. New York.
