Search

Comments on the foreign policy of George W. Bush in the U.S. Similarity of the Basic National Security Strategy paper issued by the Bush administration from those of its predecessors; Prevention of an action deemed harmful to U.S. policy; Imbalance between ideology and interest in the Bush White House.

This article explores the critical response of the Christian Right towards the Israel-Palestine conflicts by examining two events: the 2002 Road Map Peace Plan and the Annapolis Conference. It seeks to examine the critical role of the Christian Right in American foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration, with particular regard to Israel and Palestine. It argues that the Christian Right has consistently demonstrated its earnest concern about American foreign policy towards Israel, particularly the present Israel-Palestine conflict resolution. However, the paper seeks to establish that, after 9/11, the Christian Right extended its support for Israel beyond its traditional theological partiality and that such support was offered under a banner of American national security and the War on Terror. However, the study also shows how mainstream evangelicals are often divided in their opinions on the issue of the Christian Right's unequivocal support for Israel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With their increased emphasis on soft power, both the Bush and Obama Administrations have opened up a new front in the war of ideas regarding who will have the most influence over developing countries as the world moves through the twenty first century. Currently the political and philosophical differences between the parties of this conflict are not as starkly defined as they were in George Kennan’s historic argument for containment (i.e., there is no “Evil Empire,” and “terrorism” can be a process, act, or method, but not a state). Yet the consequences of losing this international war on poverty have been defined as no less than a tangible threat to U.S. national security interests and moral leadership. This paper narrowly focuses on one particular type of strategy in this new war—foreign aid for health—and how, by helping countries to supply and train more of their own soldiers in this type of fight (i.e., non-physician health workers and surgically trained workers) the United States can achieve the best results in terms of sustainability, cost, and regional impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad is the property of Revista de Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Athenaeum: Polskie Studia Politologiczne is the property of Faculty of Political Science & Security Studies Nicolaus Copernicus University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article offers a critical perspective on the Bush Doctrine's impact on the Asian, especially Southeast Asian, security order. It proceeds in four parts. The first examines the problematic nature of the Bush Doctrine, such as its deliberate conflation of preemptive and preventive war and its expansive scope as a "grand strategy of transformation." This is followed by an analysis of the responses of Southeast Asian states to the doctrine. The third part looks at the "imitation" effects of the Bush Doctrine in Asia-Pacific, where it may be reshaping, national security strategies of some states such as Australia and Japan. The last part of the paper evaluates how the Bush Doctrine, with its underlying, basis in U.S. power dominance in a unipolar global setting, affects the Asian security architecture, particularly the balance between bilateral and multilateral security approaches to regional order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the creation of the homeland security bureaucracy following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It examines how threats to the country's security have evolved since 2011, and urges reforms to counter the evolving threats. Topics discussed include U.S. President George W. Bush's creation of the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) and the Homeland Security Council, the creation of the federal Department of Homeland Security, and the passage of the Homeland Security Act.

Paolino presents two core critiques of "Performing on Cue." First, he suggests that my dichotomous measures of support for the Iraq War bias against finding evidence of reinforcing cues. Second, he suggests that using party identification (ID) as a moderator for the treatment effects biases against finding an impact for elite cues. Unfortunately, Paolino's statistical modeling choices do not reflect these theoretical concerns. His arguments about attitude strength and source credibility imply that the experimental treatments should have nonlinear effects. Yet Paolino relies on an ordinal logit model with a linear interaction of the treatments with a six-point index of party ID and Bush approval. A more appropriate approach for capturing Paolino's critiques would estimate a multinomial logit model with categorical interaction effects between the treatments and the source credibility. These more appropriate statistical modeling choices reveal that the findings of "Performing on Cue" are very robust to the concerns raised by Paolino. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the scope of U.S. executive power as of 2015, and it mentions America's constitutional history and a war powers resolution in relation to U.S. national security. America's Constitution and several former U.S. presidents such as George W. Bush are addressed, as well as congressional authorization for wars. American constitutional laws and statutes are examined, along with U.S. presidential authority, justiciability, and a separation of powers doctrine.

The authors suggest that the U.S. should not abandon the promotion of democracy in the Middle East advanced by President George W. Bush. The authors argue that democracy promotion will blunt terrorism and political violence in the region even though the post-Bush democratization debate steers away from an emphasis on national security. The authors discuss measures involved in such a strategy including conditional political and human rights reforms and inclusion of nonviolent Islamist political parties in the process.

This essay provides information on the primary genetic features of the imperialism of human rights that constitute the popular spy novel which was evident in the wake of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 in the U.S. It focuses on the ideological intersections between the literary form and the report "National Security Strategy," by the administration of President George W. Bush. In connection, the author illuminates the war on terror espionage thriller effect of which he calls the security sublime.

Copyright of International Political Science Review is the property of Sage Publications, Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the Bush Doctrine by U.S. President George W. Bush. It notes that the doctrine has been called as national security liberalism, messianic universalism, and democratic realism. It also mentions that the doctrine intends to put an end to tyranny and aims to create peace. It also reveals on the argument of several critics that the doctrine is a form of imperialism that utilizes language of democracy to hide imperial intentions. Relative to this, it uses the language of the tradition of just war in its defence for arising threats and disseminating democracy and freedom.

The Bush administration has implemented more reforms to the regulatory process than any of its predecessors. These reforms are often stereotyped as anti-regulatory. This article examines the reforms as a whole and asks which interests have been empowered by the Bush administration regulatory reforms. I believe this method is a more effective way of assessing the impact of the reforms. I find that, in addition to adding potential costs to the regulatory process, the reforms are likely to empower powerful interest groups and the presidency. Whether the impact of these reforms is pro-regulation or anti-regulation will depend on how a future administration more dedicated to regulatory protections uses them. I also lay out a research agenda to better empirically assess the impact of these regulatory reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the predicaments and speeches delivered by the President of Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) security conference in Munich, Germany on February 10, 2007. The Russian leader has made a belligerent speech during the security conference and delivered such agitating words, causing the NATO members to react with upheaval. He aggressively criticized the current administration of the U.S. President, George W. Bush for depending too much in international relations.

This article reports the American public's assessment of the U.S. government's post-9/11 efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks. It presents poll data from September 11, 2001 to December 31, 2005 and addresses issues such as the degree of confidence Americans have in their government's ability to protect them from further terrorist strikes; the public's evaluation of the effectiveness of actions at home and abroad as a means to prevent terrorism; and the perception of Americans regarding President Bush's and his administration's performance in the area of homeland security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

President Bush was praised early in his first term as a tough-minded decision maker who knows how to get things done. This essay argues that President Bush possesses formidable political skills that have helped him achieve many of his policy goals, focusing on his most important national security policies: the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism and the treatment of detainees, the use of intelligence leading up to the war, and the reorganization of the executive branch. In the end, however, President Bush’s deficiencies as a public administrator have undermined his policy successes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of honest broker has often been seen as a contributor to effective presidential decision making. This article explores the broker role of National Security Council Advisor Condoleezza Rice during three crucial decision-making episodes in George W. Bush's first term: (1) deliberations in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the decision to go to war in Afghanistan; (2) deliberations that led to the war in Iraq; and (3) deliberations concerning Iraq's postwar stabilization and reconstruction. The article finds that the broker role declined over time. This decline does not appear to be linked to other roles of the NSC advisor such as policy advocacy, but it does appear to be affected by problems of organization and management as well as its fit with presidential expectations and support of the broker role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The George W. Bush administration's national security strategy, which asserts that the United States has the right to attack and conquer sovereign countries that pose no observable threat, and to do so without international support, is one of the most aggressively unilateral U.S. postures ever taken. Recent international relations scholarship has wrongly promoted the view that the United States, as the leader of a unipolar system, can pursue such a policy without fear of serious opposition. The most consequential effect of the Bush strategy will be a fundamental transformation in how major states perceive the United States and how they react to future uses of U.S. power. Major powers are already engaging in the early stages of balancing behavior against the United States, by adopting "soft-balancing" measures that do not directly challenge U.S. military preponderance but use international institutions, economic statecraft, and diplomatic arrangements to delay, frustrate, and undermine U.S. policies. If the Bush administration continues to pursue aggressive unilateral military policies, increased soft balancing could establish the basis for hard balancing against the United States. To avoid this outcome, the United States should renounce the systematic use of preventive war, as well as other aggressive unilateral military policies, and return to its traditional policy governing the use of force—a case-by-case calculation of costs and benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Argues the continuity in the foreign policy of the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. Contents of the National Strategy Statement of the president; Promotion of an international order that favors freedom; Emphasis on arms control and the environment; Guidelines for the national security strategy for the maintenance of alliance cohesion.

Comments on the American foreign policy of U.S. President George W. Bush. Calibration of national interests that are essential to wise policy decisions; Consideration of American militarism as one of the most dramatic and consequential legacies of the Cold War; Assessment of the unprecedented centralization of power within the executive branch.

Discusses the need to reform the modes and meanings of American public diplomacy. Review of the manifestation of American power in international arenas; Shaping of American studies through diplomatic patronage; Expansion of networks of international and transnational political cultures; Directives of the National Security Council; Response to global terrorism by United States President George Bush after the September 11 attacks.

Examines the national security doctrine and the foreign policy outlined by U.S. President George W. Bush. Discussion of the character of the national security in the U.S. following its war on terror in Afghanistan; Information on the Bush's new national security doctrine for the country; Implications of the Iraq war for the U.S.

Assesses the implications of the shift in U.S. national security strategy using legal and ethical perspective. Importance of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS) statement issued by each U.S. president; Legal and ethical framework for assessing the use of military force; Implication of the U.S. security situation following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the justification of the NSS of U.S. President George W. Bush; Emergence of international order.

Does the national security strategy of the Bush administration constitute a radical new departure or does it possess clear links to past American policies? Is the Bush strategy motivated by the perception of threat, the pursuit of power, or the quest for hegemony? This article argues that the policies of the Bush administration are more textured and more conflicted than either its friends or its foes believe. They are also less bold and less likely to offer enduring solutions. In fact, they constitute a surprising departure from the ways most former US administrations have dealt with ‘existential’ threats in the twentieth century. By championing a ‘balance of power favouring freedom’ and by eschewing the ‘community of power’ approach propounded by Woodrow Wilson, Bush and his advisers are charting a unilateralist course for times of crisis, a course neither so popular nor so efficacious as its proponents think. But the unilateralism is prompted by fears and threats that must not be dismissed or trivialized by critics of the administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]