Term Paper
Spring 2012

The neoconservative model for foreign policy has always been based on a desire to spread the gift of democracy to other nations so that they too may enjoy the fruits that democracy and free markets bear. Going a step further, Robert Kagan presents the neoconservative belief that ‘the great spread of democracy, the prosperity, and the prolonged great power peace- have depended directly and indirectly on power and influence exercised by the United States.’ To ensure that this is the case, the Bush doctrine was created to preemptively strike countries in order to prevent a conflict further down the road. While it may be true that the developing world has directly and indirectly been affected by United States influence, the United States isn’t the sole arbiter of prosperity around the globe and its purpose for influence shouldn’t be mistaken for ‘spreading democracy’ but rather the neoconservative desire to leverage influence for economic and political gain. While much of this had previously been achieved through unofficial intervention and covert operations, the Bush doctrine represented a significant departure in that it used preemptive strike as a forerunning option in preventing potential future wars. While Robert Kagan's quote reflects the ideal interpretation of the neoconservative model in that it ‘spreads democracy,’ history has shown its intent to much more in the self interest of the United States relative to that of the host country in question. While Kagans viewpoint is more domestic and biased towards a favorable view of the United States, Mel Gurtov's argument in Superpower on Crusade: The Bush Doctrine in US Foreign Policy perceives the affects of US foreign policy not just from a domestic view point, but also the impact US foreign policy historically and the Bush Doctrine specifically have made in different regions. It is this revelation within Mel Gurtov's book that exposes the true arbiters of Untied States foreign policy and sheds light on the roots and shift in methods by which our policy is implemented, and the regional impact it has had around the globe. As Gurtov argued, precedence on foreign policy had always seen the United States leverage its power and influence to manipulate the affairs of other governments to promote favorable policies towards the United States at any cost. This is evident in the United States' intervention during the 1970's and 1980's in Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, and Chile with the result being US-friendly dictatorships deposing of democratically elected governments, with adverse affects to the quality of life for the general population as documented by Amnesty International. While the Bush Administration adopted a similar foreign policy to those who had come before them, there were several significant departures that have altered the method for conducting foreign policy for the administrations who are to follow. While the Bush Doctrine was based on all the usual elements such as expansion of the military, unilateralism, as well as removing unfriendly governments from power irregardless of if they were democracies or not, the Doctrine had two significant departures that Gurtov points out. First, the notion of a preemptive strike was at the very center of the Bush Administrations foreign policy,. This essentially is the idea that the United States had the right to attack a country that, while may not at the time be a threat, has the means or motives to become one and thus it is better to take them out before the threat develops. The second, and most I perceived the most concerning from Gurtov's point of view, was the introduction of secrecy and containment of the media in order to report information that was in line with the rhetoric of the Administration. These evolutions of foreign policy were all done under the same time tested guise of, as Kagan states, spreading democracy, prosperity, and peace. As stated earlier while the ideal of this sounds great, and certainly the United States is the largest country in the world by GDP and thus has the means to perform these actions, the actual product of US foreign policy was more minded towards the interests of the United States instead of the affected people. This can be seen not only in Iraq but also US involvement in South America, where many democratically elected leaders were overthrown in favor of pro-US governments that often resulted in immense hard ships for the citizens of countries such as Boliva and Paraguay. Understanding the genesis of US foreign policy and the ways the Bush Administration evolved it, a comparison between the competing ideas of Kagan, who wrote that America is essentially the arbiter of democracy, prospertiy, and peace, and Gurtov's assertions of a much more sinister foreign policy with an Administration that had a malicious intent behind its doctrine. The central reasoning for the neoconservative view as expressed by Kagan is that democracy, prosperity, and prolonged peace are related to American influence and that as this influence declines, so too do the countries and organizations that were supported. Furthermore, there is the belief in neoconservative circles that desires of countries to resist American influence will ultimately push them opening up towards terrorist groups, debatable the case in Iran, or pursuing military goals such as nuclear weapons at all costs, North Koreas favorite bargaining chip. As Bush so commonly stated post September 11, 'You're either with us or against us,' and those nations that were seen to be 'against' the United States such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea were seen to and publicly called by the Bush Administration an 'Axis of Evil' and a threat to freedom. It takes maybe a few seconds of thought to see that this is really nonsense; these axis countries didn't coordinate their efforts with two of the countries having fought a prolonged war under essentially the same leadership, and much of the information binding this group together has been proved to be false. Regardless, the Bush Administration peddled this axis of evil talk as grounds for US intervention in Iraq, and the phenomenon of nationalism that practically outlawed dissent from these policy ideas was incredibly powerful, convincing the entire nation to act first and ask questions later under the assumption America was out there fixing the world. Gurtov, however, details a much more feasible motive for the process and historical precedent of US foreign policy, especially in terms of the actual US role in the world showed through practice versus the stated one by neoconservative policy makers. Gurtov's assertions about the intent of the Bush Doctrine and how the Administration acted was best summed up within his section on unilateralism; “The decision (to sell arms to India and Pakistan) was entirely in keeping with Bush's indecent conduct of international security affairs – rewarding Pakistan, an undemocratic ally that has undermined nuclear nonproliferation and is engaged in a tense relationship with its neighbor; using that deal to sustain a “strategic dialogue” (in State Department-ses) with those in Indiana defense circles who emphasize a China threat and want advanced US weapons; and doing a major favor for US arms manufacturers such as Lockheed and Boeing, which need new markets to keep their fighter-jet production lines operating” (Gurtov 163).
This is a loaded quote that is very revealing of US intention in foreign policy. The fact that Pakistan was shipping centrifuges to countries like North Korea and attempted to do so with Syria but managed to continue to be a close 'ally' of the United States completely undermines the notion that the US involvement in global foreign policy is to give the blessings of democracy and free markets to those less fortunate. The United States continues to support Pakistan oblivious to the fact that Pakistan had to have known about its top nuclear scientist selling secrets and more recently that Osama Bin Laden was residing minutes from Pakistan’s top military academy. Furthermore, the tense relationship with its neighbor India provides the opportunity to leverage US influence to gain improved economic access to the exploding Indian market. Finally, it's important to remember that Vice President Dick Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton, a major player in the military industrial complex that gave so much to the Bush campaign, and thus this type of policy enabled the Administration to unofficially reward its supporters at the tax payers expense. These specific cases along with the action or inaction of the United States depending on a regimes friendliness towards the United States in countries such as Haiti reveal that US foreign policy was much more geared towards advancing the interests of the United States globally while rewarding the Administration's domestic supporters instead of the noble advocating and advancing of democracy and freedom that Robert Kagan's quote hints at. Gurtov's analysis of the role America has adopted for its military of resource and economic access insurance gives way to frustration, evident by his blistering critique of not only the Bush Doctrine, but also its implementations. The idea that the foreign policy laid forth by the Bush Doctrine found it appalling that a nation 'Doesn't have the interest of the United States at heart,' as said by CIA director George Tenet in 2002 when speaking about Venezuela and its leader Hugo Chavez who survived a mysterious coup attempt weeks later, is in itself appalling. The greater point that Gurtov reaches I think is an important one. So involved in expanding our influence for economic, military, and political gain is our nation that we have adopted a policy of exceptionalism – while Kagans quote states our policy’s intent to spread freedom and prosperity, we are actually rather hypocritical in the sense that our foreign policy actions are limited to what benefits the interests of the United States. As Gurtov concludes, this stubborn nationalism and sense of entitlement unfortunately refuses to work with or even accept the existence of nations who dare adopt a similar policy of nationalism in their own interest, and ultimately trumps diplomacy and cooperation in a world where this arrogance in foreign policy has only encouraged dissent and ironically further jeopardized national security for the United States going forward.