The Bush Doctrine Shifting Position and Closing the Stance

Subsequent to the President's June 1 2002 West Point speech the White House published The National Security Strategy of The United States of America. This document notes that given the new international security situation, '...the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. As a result the President was taking the position that 'to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries the United States will if necessary act preemptively.' This new preemptive policy otherwise known as the Bush Doctrine is for now constrained to the war on terrorism. However given the open-ended nature of the concept of preemption it is difficult to predict which direction this policy will take over the long term. For many both domestically and internationally the Bush Doctrine has proven to be highly contentious. While there are multiple arguments against the policy the controversy typically centers on its legality unilateral nature and ambiguity. In the author's view the policy is fundamentally correct albeit in some need of minor course correction. In order to bring some level of clarity to this discussion this paper will analyze the policy in order to gain a broader understanding of its implications review key criticisms against it draw conclusions based on this review and finally make recommendations to ensure its future viability.