Here is a good counter-argument to the Bush Doctrine:

"Eyeless in Iraq" by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16677

I agree that using the British empire as an example is a poor choice, but let’s look at the other side of the argument, is America even a hegemonic power? Calling America a hegemony implies a level a control that simply doesn’t exist. The US is undoubtedly a world power (able to project force anywhere on the globe), but is extremely limited in it’s influence over any single nation. France for example has no problem disagreeing with the US and actively working against US policy, without fear of any real reprisals. Even third world nations routinely tell the US to go to hell, what’s the worst that we can do? Bomb them? That’s fairly ineffective and can’t be continued for any length of time. An embargo? Also ineffective, look at Cuba for the nearest example of that failure of a policy.

Of course all of you that are reading this are saying. “What about Iraq? Look at how easy it was for the US to invade them.” Was it really that easy? It took the entire logistical might of the US Army six months and the cooperation of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Spain, Germany, Italy, and probably others that I haven’t though of, in order to move our forces into position. That’s not even counting the thousands of troops that were already in place in Kuwait. Even after defeating the Iraqi army (which for the most part didn’t even try to fight), our Army is still stretched pretty thin making it almost impossible to launch an offensive against any other country.

So what point am I trying to make here? If the US barely has the ability to exert significant control over a small third world country, how could it possibly bring about global stability through any means, peaceful or otherwise? We may be the biggest fish in the sea but it’s a damn big ocean out there.

You're raising the bar excessively high IMO.

The United States can effectively project power to any place in the globe thus eing able to credibly back up its intention to defend its national interests and those of its allies.

Make no mistake, take away US military power and Taiwan would be gone. So would South Korea and India and Pakistan would be in the midsts of a global crisis. And the Palestinians would probably not exist anymore (or Israel).

And that's just off the top of my head.

Draginol,
I think you overestimate the benefits of US military power. No one is suggesting we re-write history or take away current military strength. The article just suggests that the US is aggravating other countries and in time may end up causing the very thing it's policy is trying to stop.
To fight Iraq the US had to reduce committment elsewhere. The US couldn't project force towards North Korea for it's nuclear programme. Use of military force in Iraq allowed north Korea to openly flount the US and admit it used US technology to develop nuclear weapons. By the time the US again has military power available to project these weapons will be fully developed and the US will nto be able to respond. Bad mistake. And why did north Korea develop nuclear weapons while its citizans were starving? For fear of the US and it's open use of military force. US policy has created a new nuclear capable and potentially unstable enemy.

Paul.

Paul - North Korea developed nuclear weapons because it is a communist dictatorship.

Communist dictatorships have the nasty habit of utterly destroying their economies, and when you're done raping your own country, you naturally turn outwards. North Korea developed nuclear weapons not because it's afraid the US might attack them (why on earth would it?), but because it needs a bargaining chip to continue it's ludicrous demand for fuel, food, and money, none of which goes to the starving citizens. What is your solution? Feed the NK army, fuel their tanks, and finance Kim Jong Il's masturbatory excesses? And when Kim Jong Il wants more, what do you think he'll do?

Calor - there is no comparison between Pax Britannica and Pax Americana. Pax Americana doesn't require active occupation or domination of countries, it just requires the threat of overwhelming military force. It does not suffer from the pitfalls of empire-building because it is not an empire, but a sword of Damocles hanging over the world, keeping it AT PEACE.

If you take away the advantage the US military superiority gives, Pax Americana disappears. What do you want instead? Bellum Multilateratum?

Don't belittle Iraq - it's about as big a fish you can fry without going nuclear, and no one is going nuclear. Unless the Bush Doctrine gets nixed, the US retreats, and everyone sits back and waits for some nutjob group of moonbarkers (insert Islamist/communist group/theocracy/dictatorship name here) to get their hands on a nuke, which they will then detonate in some metropolitan area somewhere, killing tens of millions.

Pax Americana exists because America is strong, and feared by those who would otherwise trounce around like Genghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito or a host of others, leaving a wake of destruction all too familiar from history. America is strong not because it goes around killing everyone in sight, but because it has the *capability* to do so. Not one person in their right mind living in a modern liberal democratic state is afraid that the horrible Americans will come attack them. It's a ridiculous notion. So it is a cultural hegemony, an attack on diversity, a chauvinist ethnocentric invasion instead. I'm sorry, but this is one non-American who has absolutely no issues with a cultural, anti-diversity, ethnocentric invasion against diseased parts of cultures. No one told the Japanese to abandon eating sushi or Sumo wrestling. They did, however, tell them to root out the militaristic, ultra-nationalist facet of their culture. This is not a bad thing. Look how nice the Swedes are, now that they don't go around in horned helmets, robbing half of Europe. The world, however, is less diverse, mostly because there are less cultures who practice rape, looting, and pillaging on a regular basis. For shame.

The Bush doctrine requires the same of the Middle Eastern cleptocracies, theocracies, and hatemongers - sit down and shut up, stop killing people, or we'll beat your ass. And nothing else will work.

The "Bush Doctrine" is Un-American and ought to be discarded along with the Bush administration and at the same time, the UN.

The Bush Doctrine is merely an evolution of the doctrines of previous Presidents, going all the way back to Monroe. So are you saying that all of the Presidents (such as Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest Presidents in our history) since then were unAmerican too?

1. “The United States can effectively project power to any place in the globe thus eing able to credibly back up its intention to defend its national interests and those of its allies.”

The US can effectively project power to any TWO places on the globe. It used to be that US policy demanded a 2.5 war army, meaning the US could fight two full on wars and a defending action anywhere on the globe, now it more like 1.5.


2. “Don't belittle Iraq - it's about as big a fish you can fry without going nuclear, and no one is going nuclear.”

Iraq was still a third world country with a third world army. Granted it was as good of an army as you’re going to see in a third world country, but even the French army could have wiped the floor with them. Modern equipment is just too big of an advantage.


3. ... “The US couldn't project force towards North Korea for it's nuclear programme. Use of military force in Iraq allowed north Korea to openly flount the US and admit it used US technology to develop nuclear weapons." ... "And why did north Korea develop nuclear weapons while its citizans were starving? For fear of the US and it's open use of military force.”

Overwhelming US power caused N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons, but lack of US power allowed them to do so?


4. “The Bush Doctrine is merely an evolution of the doctrines of previous Presidents, going all the way back to Monroe. So are you saying that all of the Presidents (such as Teddy Roosevelt, one of the greatest Presidents in our history) since then were unAmerican too?”

I agree, in fact I can’t think of a war besides WW2 where the US didn’t attack preemptively or at least greatly overreact to relatively minor incidents. I would also have to say that it’s been successful so far.

Alex:

1) The US can only fight 1.5 to 2 major wars. That doesn't change the fact that the US can project significant military strength to quite a number of hot spots. The US is still quite capable of deterring Chineese invasion of Taiwan while ensureing NK doesn't attack South Korea while putting pressure on Iran and keep India and Pakistan from going to full out war.

2) The French could not have attacked Iraq because they lack the logistical ability to move their (ahem) "army" there. France could not have conquered Iraq.

3) If you think "overwhelming" US power "caused" NK to develop weapons then it appears to me you're in the blame America first. NK started developing nuclear weapons in the 90s when the threat from the US was nominal.

North Korea has considered itself at war with the US since the 1950's. It was trying to develop nuclear weapons during the 80's and agreed to stop in return for US help in building nuclear power stations. It has now restarted it's nuclear programme and accelerated it. Why? Because it can. America is stretched too thin and can't afford another war. America invaded Iraq claiming that it had weapons of mass destruction. In doing so it reduced it's ability to threathen North Korea enough so that it HAS developed weapons of mass destruction.

The US is only able to deter China because it's navy is far more powerful. If Iraq involved a naval war then it would be stuck. China however can't invade Taiwan due to the huge political and economical backlash. More importantly the standard of living in Taiwan is much higher and the social backlash would be enormouse. Look at the problem it is now having with western companies paying much higher rates for the same work.

Iraq was not a current threat. It may indeed have been a future threat. North Korea is NOW a nuclear capable threat. The countries which could have assisted against this (Russia and China) were snubbed by the US on Iraq and have no inclination to assist the US.

Bush Doctrine 0 North Korea 1

Paul.

Why doesn’t Bush deal with N Korea militarily? Why doesn’t Japan, South Korea, China, Russia, or the EU do any thing about Jong-Ils Weapons of mass destruction?

The answer is simple, the threat is active. An ego maniacal, sociopath dictator Kim Jong-Il has canvassed his nation with his portrait and developed nuclear weapons.

In 1994 Kim Jong IL rattled sabers and threatened war on S Korea, Bill Clinton caved in to Jong ILS demands and gave him a “deal.” The deal gave N Korea billions of dollars in raw materials, in exchange for the promise that N Korea would give up nuclear weapon program ambitions.

Jong-Il did not keep his word and the appeasement policies were a complete failure. My guess is that government officials are hoping that this lunatic that starves his people does not wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to annihilate a projected million. I would imagine that everyone is hoping that diplomacy can somehow work, as our subs armed with Tridents watch for the slightest Jong IL twitch to engage a warhead.

"Pax Americana doesn't require active occupation or domination of countries, it just requires the threat of overwhelming military force"

In my opinion the threat of overwhelming force IS domination.

Oh, and "Pax Americana"'s "Sword of Damocles" has been hanging over the world's head since the end of the Cold War, but that didn't stop the terrorists did it? Pax Britannica worked because, when Britain dominated/invaded/occupied a country, whenever there was an insurgency or rebellion it was brutally put down, in many cases it was state terrorism. America is the same, when Pax Americana is threatened, down comes the US Jackboot onto the neck of the Iraqi scoundrel. The Romans did the same, when Pax Romana was threatened, they crushed the rebellion with absolutely no remorse and morals never got a look in.

In todays world of Geneva Conventions and so-called Human Rights, this isn't possible....but as we see in Guantanamo Bay, these are minor issues that can be bypassed as a "detained enemy combatant" is not REALLY a simile for "Prisoner of War"

American foreign policy and the sheer arrogance of believing they can dominate the entire world has led to the formation of these anti-american groups such as al-qaeda.

I must agree with Alex...US powers are better spent else where. N. Korea is a large case in point.