Special Offer!Pay less for your papers
Get 15% off your first order
|← George W. Bush||New Orleans Police Department →|
One of the greatest U.S.A steps that sparked off both the national and international politics was the invasion of Iraq. Could George Bush have invaded Iraq as a revenge mission, as a consequence of Saddam Hussein’s intention to kill his father? If it was, why did not he take into account the lives of Iraq people as well as the American soldiers? Governments of many nations, who never took part, opposed this violation as well as an important section of the population in those states that participated in the invasion. Most of the people, who opposed the invasion, viewed the war as illegal. They also articulated that the war was expected to create a lot of uncertainty not only in Iraq, but also in large sections of Middle East states.
The administration of George Bush had stated objectives of the war such as creation of arms embargo among the states that had led in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. U.S.A government under the leadership of George .W. Bush held the belief that Iraq contained weapons of mass destruction, which needed to be counteracted. They also linked Iraq with the September 11th, 2001 attack. Since the government claimed ownership of offensive weapons, no weapons of mass destruction have ever been found in Iraq, as members of the American convention and other government top officials claimed. Although a section of the populace seemed to coincide with the efforts of the government, most of the people, then, held belief that the attack was actually a mistake and has remained to be so since then. Some of the criticisms came from the American citizens, military personnel, US politicians, national security and the generals who were involved in the war.
In January 2003, CBS New York Times opinion poll illustrated that 63% of Americans required Bush to declare a diplomatic solution to Iraq condition, compared with only a small percentage, about 31%, who wanted immediate military intervention. Since he never showed any attempt to use diplomacy, the logic of attacking Iraq would, therefore, be highly controversial. Lack of applying international laws, therefore, creates an ambiguity as to why Bush regime would have invaded Iraq prior to consulting United Nations. To provide temporary settlement of the mind, regarding to this question, it can be thought that his job could have been to attack Iraq resources, for example, petroleum. The fact that U.S.A never consulted the United Nations on the matter showed the negligence of the government and their commitment to fulfill their own demands at the expense of other people’s lives.
Another perspective that the administration of George .W. Bush can be perceived to support realism is its emphasis on security matters. In this case, the administration seemed to overemphasis on two principal dimensions of security: political and territorial. There was massive advocate to protect the people, institutions as well as the values of the American people. Great concerns on stability, maintenance of power, military strength, among others were also overemphasized. The relevant authorities in America, including Bush’s legal advisers, were aiming at promoting and protecting the status and condition of America. From realists’ point of view, when such actions are carried out, a signal of the quest to retain control or accumulate more influence over other states would be sent out. This was one of the major focuses of Bush administration. Regular capture and indirect supervision of other independent states are also a way of wielding power.
Evidence of development of social disruption and chaos at the international level is sufficient evidence that Bush administration succumbed to realism. For example, invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003 was a ste that could easily spark off modern international conflict after the Second World War. The war could mean other nations such as Iran and North Korea to equip them in readiness to react the forces of Bush military, since he had also warned them of manufacturing offensive weapons. The extent of state sovereignty was also aroused at the moment and most states led by the Russians particularly opposed the invasion.
Considering the effectiveness of foreign policy of Bush administration, it is also evident that the final results were a failure picture. To a large extent what matters in a great nation like U.S.A is not its ability to promote mutual relations with other sovereign states (which Bush never achieved in the first place), but its ability to maintain the effectiveness of a particular foreign policy. The analysis of such can be done by looking at the general conditions of the nation in terms of the social, economic and the government welfare. In the case of America during the reign of Bush, the country was left in a pathetic level as compared to the previous eras in terms of the economic aspect. The economy of the country was reported to have declined during this era. This could have, possibly, been explained by the multiple involvements in wars at the expense of other domestic issues.
The period also saw the decline in the participation of America at the international trade, which could also be another reason explaining the decline of U.S.A’s wealth. For example, the invasion of Iraq culminated into most Middle East states withdrawing from U.S.A business relationships. The mismanaged reign by Bush led to systematic alienation of the competing states. This could be translated to mean that the government sowed seeds of self destruction. The material capability of the government was compromised during the period. As a result, the international image was tarnished. Resources that could have been used in other sectors of development were used to refurbish the nation after the war.
Bush came under criticism from British leaders for the denunciation of the Kyoto Protocol, whose purpose was to reduce waste products that interfere with the welfare of the environment. For instance, carbon dioxide discharge that play a significant role in global warming. He asserted that the Kyoto Protocol was unreasonable and ineffective. Governments from leading environmental friendly states have disparaged the disappointment of the United States to endorse the Kyoto Protocol, which was a significant indication but not submitted for ratification by the previous administration. Bush, who was in conflict with the public desires regarding the treaty, repealed U.S.A administrative support from the proposed treaty. In 1997, prior to the Kyoto consultation, the Byrd–Hegel decree as approved in the U.S.A council by a 95 vote. The declaration affirmed that the United States should not be a contender for any protocol that did not include essential targets and timetables for developing nations, as well as industrialized ones. All these show the evidence of self-centeredness at the expense of other nation’s welfare.
Liberalism part of Bush administration
Liberalism perspective views issues from a different angle. For instance, Bush administration could also be perceived to be liberalized. It looked at the safety of people in a wider perspective. Liberalism calls for a diverse view of needs and interests. To liberals, global or international attention would be of utmost concern than the state welfare. The general objectives of peace, human security, improving human health in a large geographical capacity would be the utmost concern of the liberalists (Hearth, 2003), which were hitherto the main concerns of Bush adminiistration. There were efforts also aimed at creating harmony among people, dealing with anxiety from a diplomatic point of approach and military intervention, fight against diseases among other useful contribution to the wider society.
Bush administration also tried to improve its relationship with other countries, also the relationship between other countries by preventing a Nuclear War between India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have had compromised relationship since the realization of independence in 1947. The introduction of nuclear armaments into the disagreement could have meant global catastrophe, but Bush’s intervention came strong in stopping the planned war. Bush maintained a desire to recommence the peace situation in Israel, and explicitly articulated his desire for a Palestinian territory to be formed before 2005. He outlined a strategy, aimed at attaining peace and cooperation with Russia, the United Nations and European Union, which contained partnership that was to be made by the two parties before Palestinian as a state could become a reality.
A situation that can explain the administration of Bush as liberalists is his efforts of maintaining international peace and harmony in different countries. For example, in Sudan Darfur, where U.S.A’s assistance contributed tremendously, by giving aid to the Sudanese people. In another case, the government of Bush also was involved in humanitarian aid schemes. This showed the courage that the government had in promoting unity and health among different people of the world.
The move to a liberal-realist will ultimately help to integrate a complex process that will ensure that the country achieves its interests. In this case study, we can see George Bush’s government has been both liberal and realist. Liberal because it has improved its relationship with other states, while also helping the underdeveloped states to build up, and realist because they misunderstood how other states perceived U.S.A. They were convinced American nation was a force for charitable and other states would appreciate it as long as the Bush administration acted decisively, while in fact that was not the case. It led to anti Americanism in response to specific U.S.A policies. Considering the U.S.A as the world’s superpower with that position of primacy, the Bush administration should have concentrated on maximizing the benefits that bring dominance and minimizing the energy that brings opposition, thus, preserving its current level for as long as possible. The possible criteria were:
Hegemony: run the world as its own, i.e. use force to make sure its preferences were followed. Selective arrangement, which involves deploying large military forces in Europe, Asia and Middle East in the context of multilateral and bilateral alliances so as to lessen security competition in these regions and stress the need to restrict use of WMD Offshore balance; arrange power abroad, only when there are undeviating threats to critical American value. This criterion assumes that only a few areas are of strategic importance to the U.S.A, thus, are worth fighting for.
Had the Bush administration been acting entirely on public interest, it should have used all the power, time, and resources in rebuilding its relationship with other states such as the Middle East or better yet hopeful economic and political reforms in the Arab/Islamic world. Instead, it used the quasi grand role in the Middle East of dictating, rather than negotiating, also discouraging other states from using nuclear weapons, while the U.S.A has them in the store, which lead to countries such as North Korea and Iran pursuing a nuclear deterrent. Its rivals such as Iran and Syria are ganging up.