The Bush Doctrine affirms the legitimacy of a preventive strike and emphasizes the notion that "if you are not with us, you are against us." U.S. foreign policy, therefore, is no longer just about containment or supporting freedom fighters, but about shedding the multilateralism favored by the Clinton administration. Is the Bush Doctrine a sound and effective strategy in the war on terror?
The neoconservatives of the Bush administration have remained surprisingly determined on going to war with Iraq, despite the British insistence on UN involvement and Saddam Hussein's agreement to weapons inspections. Anatol Lieven considers what they hope to gain.
The pattern of international engagement in Afghanistan has long been a piecemeal one. The international community moves from relief to reconstruction with a logic that is apparent to those who administer developmental assistance professionally, but its slow pace is often interpreted as indifference by communities that are the target of its efforts.
When diplomatic historians look back on the 1990s, they should describe it as the era of European integration. They will do so, however, only if the project is completed. As the Bush administration begins the process of promoting democratic regime change along a new frontier in the Muslim world, it must also finish the job on the European frontier.
The almost single-minded interest in the personnel matters surrounding China's upcoming leadership transition ignores a far more important point: very serious underlying issues of governance await China's next leadership, no matter who this might be.
Given the emphasis on democracy promotion as part of the war on terrorism, why does the U.S. ignore the view of the vast majority of Arabs? The U.S. would do well to listen to the voices of its Arab allies and pursue peace and economic development in the Middle East, instead of waging war on Iraq.