J U D G I N G H A R S H L Y The Bush Doctrine in Practice C H R I S T O P H E R S C U L L I N T H E B U S H D O C T R I N E , F O R M A L L Y K N O W N AS T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S N A T I O N A L S E C U R I T Y S T R A T E G Y 2002, R E O R I E N T S U N I T E D S T A T E S F O R E I G N A N D D O M E ST I C S EC U R ITY P O L - ICY T O R E C O G N I Z E T H E I N C R E A S I N G T H R E A T O F T E R R O R I S T I C W A R F A R E . T H E D O C - T R I N E MAN D A T E S T A K I N G A N Y A C T I O N D E E M E D N E C E S S A R Y F O R A M E R I C A N S E C U R I T Y , M A I N T A I N I N G T H E O P T I O N F O R P R E V E N T I V E , U N I L A T E R A L WAR. T H I S P A P E R W I L L E X - P L O R E T H E D O C T R I N E ' S IM P A C T O N U . S . F O R E I G N P O L I C Y AS W E L L AS ITS S H O R T C O M - I N G S AS A C O M P O N E N T O F I N T E R N A T I O N A L LAW. IT C O N C L U D E S T H A T A S H I F T IN F O R E I G N P O L I C Y IS N E C E S S A R Y T O I M P R O V E T H E D O C T R I N E ' S E F F E C T I V E N E S S . In its opening stanzas, the United States National Security Strategy 2002 (NSS) summarizes succinctly the spirit of the Bush Doctrine: "History wi l l judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action."1 Indeed, the Bush Doctrine is essentially a mandate to take any action deemed necessary for American security; it is a reaction to the changing nature of warfare, where attacks are constantly possible and tragically unex- pected. The NSS explains that while pre-emption is no longer useful, the need for it still exists. Though its call for a new security paradigm is timely and, i n fact, overdue, its failure to revolutionize tactics i n response to this paradigm shift has led to the deterioration of the security situation. The Doctrine correctly acknowledges that the main threat to U.S. interests is that of non-state or extra-state actors, most notably 'terrorist' organizations. Though it is certainly true that terrorism has been an active part of inter- national relations for some time, the disintegration of larger, old-world threats embodied by the Cold War—com- bined with the exponential increase i n available technol- ogy—has made terrorism the central concern. The NSS document essentially reorients United States foreign and domestic security policy towards this new threat, insisting that the only way to defend against it is to maintain the op- tion for preventive, unilateral war and to concurrently spread democracy. "As its central focus, the Bush Doctrine codifies and centralizes for the first time one of the realities of international conflict: the option for preventive war." Though reorganization was and is indeed necessary, the Bush Doctrine is largely couched i n old-world military tac- tics, and thus wi l l require much revision into the future. The Doctrine fails to take into account the fundamental motivations, potentially loose organizational structure, and wide geographical spread of terrorism, thereby failing to disrupt the terrorist organization and arguably even help- ing to recruit more terrorists. As a principle defining a na- tion's response, the Bush Doctrine is inconsistent, too shortsighted, and, therefore, broadly ineffective. With these faults in mind, the Bush Doctrine, though a positive and sound first step toward reformation of global security, would have to undergo major reformation and develop- ment before it could provide any lasting security. O R I G I N S A N D O R I E N T A T I O N As its central focus, the Bush Doctrine codifies and centralizes for the first time one of the realities of interna- tional conflict: the option for preventive war. In addition, the Doctrine insists on the option of unilateralism and ex- pands upon the United States' commitment to spreading democracy. At first glance, an explicit focus on each of these elements is rather new to United States foreign policy. The United States has traditionally been isolationist unti l this century, when its role i n world affairs was elevated by conflicts i n Europe. Though the United States had supported spread- ing democracy, it had traditionally done so as a byproduct of its main goal of stemming the spread of communism; though it took initiative i n such conflicts as the first Gulf War, it had not made explicit policy of unilateralism and po- lice action before the Bush Doctrine. Though the centralization of unilateralism and preventive warfare is new, the need for such a move has existed for quite some time as an evolution of the Cold War Conflict. I n the Cold War, U.S. policy identified fair-market capital- ism as a force for good i n the world and its converse, autoc- racy, as a source of evil. This is evident i n Ronald Reagan's 1982 "Evil Empire" speech, i n which he addressed the E L E M E N T S FALL 09 BUSH PREPARING TO ADDRESS THE NATIONAL DEFENSE ACADEMY ABOUT THE CURRENT POLICIES FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ. House of Commons i n Britain. Lauding the "consistent re- straint and peaceful intentions of the West," President Reagan denounced the Soviet policy of "denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens" and assured the House that "the forces of good ultimately rally and tr iumph over evil." 1 1 This mindset is essential to understanding the Bush Doctrine. As Andrew Flibbert explains, the main drives be- hind the U.S. decision to go to war i n Iraq (an expression of the Bush Doctrine) were "a belief i n the necessity and benevolence of American hegemony, a Manichaean con- ception of politics, a conviction that regime type is the prin- cipal determinant of foreign policy, and great confidence i n the efficacy of military force." ! Each of these motivations is an echo of Cold War foreign policy; the world had been divided into competing zones defined primarily by regime type, and military power was the means to end the crisis. In the Cold War, the need for democracy sprung from the goal of withering the power of the Soviet Union and thus pro- tecting American citizens; i n its evolution, terrorism has replaced the Soviet Union, and terrorism can be fought by reducing the origins of it, which the Bush Doctrine locates i n autocracy.1V President Bush alluded to the connection between the struggles of the Cold War and the current struggle against terrorism i n his speech at West Point i n 2002, i n which he said, Because the war on terror will require resolve and patience, it will also require firm moral purpose. In this way our struggle is similar to the Cold War. Now, as then, our ene- mies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life . . . America confronted imperial communism in many differ- ent ways—diplomatic, economic, and military. Yet moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War." Clearly, the moral and ethical backings of each policy are intimately connected, as indeed are the elements of the J U D G I N G H A R S H L Y doctrines: preventive warfare, unilateralism, and spreading of democracy. Though the Bush Doctrine tenets find their essential origin i n the Cold War, they are "revolutionary" i n that they recog- nize the differences between conflicts. In noting that deter- rence is no longer effective, that weapons of mass destruc- tion are no longer a last resort, and that terrorists prize destruction as an end, the Bush Doctrine attempts an ideo- logical break with the Cold War period through centralizing preventive and potentially unilateral war. T H E CASE FOR T H E D O C T R I N E This centralization of terrorism leads to a new framework with which to analyze the decision to engage an enemy. The most important aspect of the military goals of the Bush Doctrine is preventive warfare. Preventive warfare is dis- tinct from pre-emptive warfare, yet the Bush Doctrine elim- inates this distinction, insisting that i f terrorism is the biggest security threat, the taboo surrounding preventive warfare must be eliminated. The distinction between the two is rather simple. As Lawrence Freedman writes, "A pre-emptive war takes place at some point between the moment when an enemy de- cides to attack—or, more precisely, is perceived to be about to attack—and when the attack is actually launched" while preventive war "can be seen as preemption i n slow motion, more anticipatory or forward thinking, perhaps even look- ing beyond the target's current intentions to those that might develop along with greatly enhanced capabilities."V1 Preemption has usually been sanctioned by the UN as an act of self-defense according to Article 51.v" A good exam- ple of this was the 1967 Israeli attack on Egypt, where the international community agreed that an Egyptian attack had been imminent . v i i i On the other hand, preventive war- fare, because of its potential for abuse and lower level of cer- tainty, has traditionally been outlawed. Despite this traditional view, one might argue that preven- tive war has been an increasingly viable option for political leaders of the past half-century and was a common theme running through the evolution of Cold War thought. As Saki Dockrill notes, "The Eisenhower Administration dis- cussed at some length the possibility of taking preventive action," and "President John F. Kennedy pondered ways i n which the United States could take 'some form of action' that might discourage China from pursuing the nuclear path"; indeed, "preemptive and preventative strategies thus have strong historical roots."1 X In this light, one might suggest that preventive war is an ex- tension of the Cold War policies as well; still, the change de- scribed i n the Bush Doctrine is to extend and centralize its use. The Bush Doctrine posits that terrorism needs a home base, and thus connects terrorist activity with "state spon- sor^]" of terrorisms It is not only a pending attack and its variable t iming difference, but also the very status of allow- ing terrorists to form organizations within a country that becomes a basis for attack under the strategy. The Doctrine argues that action is necessary under these circumstances. The military provocation that preemption assumes does not exist i n the case of terrorist activity or other related guerilla tactics; yet terrorist attacks are in- BUST OF LENIN, THE FOUNDER OF THE COMMUNIST SOVIET UNION. evitable—the only difference is the time frame. The Doctrine argues that preventive action is the only way to bring a reasonable assurance that American lives wi l l not be subject to constant threat. Another important aspect of the Bush Doctrine is the em- phasis on the option for unilateralism, drawn out of the concept of preventive warfare itself. It is rooted i n the sense of moral clarity that forms the backbone of the whole Doctrine, believing that the United States is a force for good, and thus may act alone to effect good. The Doctrine envisions the probability that the government wi l l have to act alone i f the international community doubts the efficacy or Tightness of the action. x ! To become a guiding principle, however, the Doctrine does have to set its limits; and al- though there is no specific l imit to unilateral war posited by the NSS 2002, its proponents have begun to outline such limits i n their own writings. Most prominent among these authors as pertains to these limits is Charles Krauthammer, who posits that intervention should be limited by the abil- ity of the United States to act economically and militarily, as well as the direct application of the threat to U.S. security i n the long-term (such as to defeat violent extremism). The other major prong of the Doctrine is to promote free market democracy. Although not necessarily apparent, this is equally important to the emphasis on unilateralism. The Bush Doctrine believes the root of terrorism is illiberality: autocratic governments that deprive their citizens of free- dom and thus create poverty and discontent. Beyond this security goal, as Charles R. Kesler summarized, the Bush Doctrine insisted that America has a moral responsibility "as the result of our respect for human rights, to help the Iraqis and others realize their democratic entitlement and destiny. " x i v When taken together, these factors add up to a theoretically effective strategic response. I f the United States takes pains to root terrorists out of their state-sponsored homes regardless of a lack of help and creates a situation for more liberty and better living conditions in at-risk societies, it is "The Bush Doctrine posits that terrorism needs a home base, and thus connects terrorist activity with 'state sponsor[s]' of terrorism." reasonable to assume that the United States wi l l be more secure i n the future. The weapon most readily accessible was, of course, the military, and it is only natural that it be- came the center of the immediate solution to the problem. W H A T W E N T W R O N G These arguments i n favor of the Doctrine are certainly per- suasive, yet the Bush Doctrine has received a tepid re- sponse. Despite its commitment to the safety of its citi- zens, the Bush Doctrine has been roundly criticized both i n the popular mediums and among the political elite. To be sure, it has its defenders, but the recent election of Barack Obama, campaigning against the policies of the Bush Doctrine, suggest that the Bush Doctrine has failed to w i n i n the arena of public support. Of course, part of this reception is directly correlated with the events surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom, which one might argue evolved out of the thinking of the Bush Doctrine (though technically Operation Iraqi Freedom was an enforcement action of UN disarmament mandates). Yet there are indeed fundamental problems with the doctrine that form a legitimate basis for criticism, the most oft- levied and prominent of these being the Doctrine's rela- tionship—or lack thereof—with international law. Broadly speaking, its opponents argue that the Bush Doctrine is acceptable when applied to one power, but prob- lematic when its tenets are universalized such that all states act the same way. The first problem is the breaking of the weak-but-still-existent taboo on war; i f the United States is free to act as it wi l l around the world, the argument goes, so are any number of other hostile states, and it wi l l be diffi- cult for any international structure to censure a nation for acting with the same impunity as the United States. In tandem with the breaking of the war taboo, preventive war also weakens the concept of state sovereignty, reducing the UN's power to assert the rights of states under invasion. The United States specifically posits, opponents point out, that democracy must be spread to promote stability—but this tenet explicitly denies the right of self-determination i n a given state. Indeed, i f borders are malleable and nations can be invaded at any country's wil l to change a govern- mental structure or depose a dictator, the UN—dominated by one of the propagators of the weakening of state sover- eignty—will have less right to put a stop to the conflict. A l l nations wi l l have incentive to gain an upper hand through preventive action, and no body wi l l exist to oppose such chaos. As Ivo Daalder of the Council of Foreign Relations writes, preemptive war "wi l l exacerbate the security dilemma among hostile states, by raising the incentive of all states to initiate military action before others do." x v This weakening of international law would, the argument con- tinues, result i n massive rearmament and an increase, nat- urally, i n the events of war. Opponents of the Doctrine point to the wars i n Iraq and Afghanistan as inevitable outcroppings of the "pro-war" leanings of the Bush Doctrine and see a new military-in- dustrial complex lead by big corporations as the real moti- vation for these "illegal" (read: without UN permission) wars. x v l Though these claims rely on individual motiva- tions and therefore are outside the immediate purview of this paper, their effect on public opinion has been substan- tial, and the Bush Doctrine may have trouble surviving i n the hostile climate that has formed around it. Beyond the complaints of international law, there is also the more realist approach to the Doctrine that posits that there are not enough resources i n the world to promote the kind of militarily enforced safety that the Doctrine envisions. So while Charles Krauthammer does lay out a specific vision of where the Bush Doctrine should intervene, its oppo- nents argue that its limits are subjective and wi l l result i n too much intervention worldwide. Though there are many other arguments posed against the Bush Doctrine, most can be folded into one of the above cat- egories, particularly that related to international law. The Bush Doctrine, according to its opponents, brushes aside international law to promote its own safety and, i n doing so, has a deleterious effect on worldwide peace. C A N T H E D O C T R I N E BE F I X E D ? Of course, no matter how much opposition the Doctrine has garnered, it has, for the short term, achieved its imme- diate objective of promoting the safety of the American homeland. Though the Doctrine forms a solid theoretical framework for response given the resources available to the country and the need for an immediate response, it must be modified to best serve the security of the United States i n the long run. There are specific problems with the Doctrine, enumerated below, that, when addressed, might be able to convert the short-term success of the Bush Doctrine. First, the Doctrine must introduce some level of compromise with international law, i f for no other reason than that its politi- cal survival depends on a shift in public opinion only possi- ble out of such a change. Second, tactical changes are nec- essary. The Doctrine's reliance on the military has proven, i n the words of at least one commentator, to be both "reac- tive and anachronistic. " x v n By failing to take into account more abstract, intangible societal and human factors and focusing mainly on military strategy, the Doctrine has po- tentially endangered the long-term safety of the United States. For the long term, the implementation of the policy has been inconsistent, shortsighted, and ineffective. Broadly speaking, the Bush Doctrine must first be adapted to include a consideration of international law. Of course, i n its fundamental redefinition of pre-emptive war to in- clude preventive war, the Bush Doctrine's fundamental tenets reject the current paradigm of international law. Still, a change is possible i f the United States works to as- semble a set of guidelines i n advance of a specific threat that would discourage other nations from opposing conflict for selfish reasons. For example, the United States might propose to the international community a terrorism ex- emption arising from terrorist attacks on a UN or NATO member, or rewrite its principles to include a waiting pe- riod before preventive action is possible. The first proposal would tip the balance of international law against terrorist states, as the countries of the West would rarely be able to be accused of terrorism, while the second would, though tors, such as regional or democratic stability within the country as well as the country's ability to strike back, wi l l make it impossible to punish a government for actions by terrorists within the state™" These criteria essentially l imit the Bush Doctrine to only militarily weak states that clearly sponsor terrorism—or, i n other words, Afghanistan and potentially a few African nations. Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea (all targets of recent rebuke from the U.S. gov- ernment) would have to be exempted from the Doctrine. In fact, the long-term, fervent dedication of some i n the ad- ministration to effect regime change i n I raq x l x is possibly the only reason that Iraq was able to surmount this poten- tially prohibitive test. "The Doctrine's reliance on the military has proven, in the words of at least one commentator, to he both 'reactive and anachronistic.'" preventing a tactical disadvantage i n giving the enemy more time, promote a time of reflection before conflict that would pacify to some degree those who oppose the Doctrine. There are, of course, plenty of other ways that the Doctrine could make more room to accommodate its political and in- ternational opponents to some degree. The Doctrine does the United States a disservice by weakening international law, compromising the principle of stability that is so cen- tral to the Doctrine's success. Accommodation of this structure can help the Doctrine not only i n its image but also i n its actual results. Tactically, the Bush Doctrine as stated does not form a con- sistent framework for practical decisions. The Doctrine re- quires a l ink between the host state and terrorist attacks to weed out terrorists. As Saki Ruth Dockrill writes, even when such states are identified, it is probable that other fac- Furthermore, once the decision to take action is made, the Bush Doctrine faces the problem that it is ironically (given its intention to stem long-term threats) shortsighted, ac- cording to many commentators. There is a common sup- position that U.S. incursion i n volatile terrorist regions ac- tually increases terrorist recruitment, a conclusion drawn from, among other sources, the classified National Intelligence Estimate 20o6, x x the U.S. State Department assessment of global terror i n 2007, x x t and an International Institute for Strategic Studies report . x w One might re- spond that such increases lead to terrorism elsewhere than the United States and thus improve U.S. security (and some argue that i f Iraq is eliminated from equations, ter- rorism has actually declined) ; x x i i i consequently, the actions are still effective i n breaking terrorist organization that would otherwise allow them to reach the United States. Still, it is easy to conjecture that Western presence i n the Middle East through the years has been a major catalyst for J U D G I N G H A R S H LY U.S. SOLDIERS BEING DEPLOYED FOR MILITARY COMBAT IN AFGHANISTAN. terrorism throughout the world. The United States might have learned from its initial funding of insurgent opera- tions i n Afghanistan i n the 1980s that incursion i n the re- gion has long-term consequences for terrorist recruitment and planning.™7 Even i f terrorists are not increasing i n number today, one suspects that this incursion wi l l cause increases in the future. Another manifestation of the Doctrine's shortsighted na- ture is its myopic focus on the Middle East, a focus has com- promised many other foreign policy goals. Relations with Russia, North Korea, Africa, and even other Middle Eastern states have suffered as a result of the investment of re- sources and attention i n Iraq. The Doctrine calls for for- eign policy to be oriented toward terrorist states, but it does so at the expense of traditional foreign policy and diplo- matic goals. This particular side effect is actually written into the doctrine itself, i n expectation that traditional mi l i - tary antipathies were no longer valid. The NSS document proclaims that Russia and the United States "are no longer strategic adversaries" and welcomes a "stable, peaceful, and prosperous Asia-Pacific region." x x v Since then North Korea "has provoked the United States with missile launches and a nuclear test," x x v i and Russia has undertaken an "increasingly confrontational foreign policy."30"™ Alarmingly, the gap between the United States and Iran has widened significantly. x v 111 Without concern for how these more traditional threats might develop, there was plenty of room to engage the military i n Iraq and Afghanistan; yet by engaging the military, the administra- tion no longer held a military trump card on the more tra- ditional foes. Even i f it did not increase terrorism or reduce projections of force globally, the invasions themselves have not been ef- fective—at least i n relation to the tasks set before them. The invasion of Iraq satisfied only the pre-9/11 goal of re- moving Saddam Hussein from power; i n Afghanistan, al Qaeda has escaped and is continuing its terrorist missions. Saki Ruth Dockrill echoes this point when she explains, Since [the invasion of Afghanistan], the al Qaeda network and its followers have expanded their targets across the globe. . . . So, while it is seen as legitimate, the Afghanistan campaign raises the important question as to whether military intervention is an appropriate response to international terrorism.xxix Indeed, the military invasion of Afghanistan has success- fully removed the state sponsor, yet failed to address the un- derlying existence of the terrorist group and its ability to strike at U.S. interests. Militarily, this failure is owing to a significant misunder- standing of the terrorist threat. Despite recognition that terrorism was fundamentally different from big-state vio- lence, fundamental tactics were not changed, and each problem was still approached i n terms of military incursion on sovereign land; as Lawrence Freedman notes, having "taken on board the notion of asymmetric war," it was merely "geared . . . to the dominant scenarios that were guiding all American force planning." x v ; The U.S. mis- sions of the 1990s such as i n Bosnia had been able to rely on air power to effect the mission's goals; against a terror- ist network, it is very hard to bomb only terrorists hiding i n houses with no strategic infrastructural sites. As Freedman writes concerning Afghanistan, When the US responded with its standard coercive air cam- paign, the minimal results it achieved during the first month reinforced the image of a great power disoriented by a tiny power offering few 'strategic' targets worth hitting, hut still able to exploit every stray 'precision' weapon that hit a civilian site to maintain the propaganda offensive.***1 The results to this point have not been encouraging, as al Qaeda continues to function, and has orchestrated attacks in "Bali (October 2002), Spain (March 2004), and London (July 2005)," among other attacks, since the start of the con- flict.50™1 Clearly, terrorists have been able to become supra-national. The Bush Doctrine begins with an emphasis on terrorist technology; however, it should also consider the role that technology can play i n allowing terrorists to organize with- out a state sponsor. Indeed, as Cronin remarks, "[T]he cur- rent wave of international terrorism . . . not only is a reac- tion to globalization but is facilitated by i t . " x x x l i i As Rupert Smith discusses i n The Utility of Force, the changing nature of the threat to states requires a changed response. The Bush Doctrine simply fails to fundamentally alter tactics i n response to the threat. Still, these shortcomings i n both accommodation of inter- national law and tactical innovation can be easily adapted and upgraded for a new generation of technological innova- tion. I f the Doctrine makes an explicit effort to reorient it- self toward new cooperation and a new, more sophisticated appraisal of the threats, it can continue to serve as a funda- mental security doctrine for the world's largest super- power. C O N C L U S I O N Indeed, the Bush Doctrine still has hope to continue its mission of promoting homeland security. As the corner- stone of a new U.S. focus on the safety of its citizens and the beginnings of a theoretical (if not procedural) shift i n de- fense policy, the Bush Doctrine has been an important landmark i n U.S. history. Into the future, the policy must be expanded, building on its stoic commitment to home- land security by ceasing to incite terrorism and weaken in- ternational law while concurrently reorienting strategy to address the threats of the new age of technology. Though it is true that it has been successful in the short term, the doc- trine needs to be accompanied by a rethinking of the funda- mental way that security problems are approached militar- ily and i n relation to international law i f it is to continue to function i n the long run. I f such a refocusing were to occur, the Doctrine has high hopes of continuing its short-term success into the future. "The only path to peace and secu- rity" may be "the path of action," but the Doctrine needs to decide what actions constitute that path. E N D N O T E S i . National Security Strategy (Intro.) i i . Reagan i i i . Flibbert (312) iv. National Security Strategy (Intro.) v. Bush vi. Freedman (106-7) vii. Charter of the United Nations viii. Heisbourg (78) ix. Dockrill (347) x. National Security Strategy (6) xi. National Security Strategy (Intro.) xii. Krauthammer xiii. Ibid. xiv. Kesler xv. Daalder xvi. Podhoretz xvii. Cronin (30) xviii. Dockrill (366) xix. Dockrill (357-9), referring to the pressure i n the administra- t ion xx. "Spy Agencies Say" xxi. "Report: Global terrorism up" xxii. "Occupation has boosted al-Qaida" xxiii. "Iraq figures distort terrorism statistics" J U D G I N G H A R S H L Y xxiv. "Who is Osama b in Laden?" xxv. National Security Strategy (26-7) xxvi. " N . Korea Puts Launch I n Innocuous Terms" xxvii. Bremmer xxviii. Ghumman xxix. Dockrill (362) xxx. Freedman 2001 (76) xxxi. Freedman 2001 (66) xxxii. Ibid. xxxiii. Cronin (30) REFERENCES Bremmer, Ian. "Russia and the U.S. i n a Post-Aug. 8 World," . Bush, George W. 2002. "Remarks by the President at 2002 Graduation Exercise of the United States Military Academy." Institute of Communication Studies, University of Leeds, UK. . Charter of the United Nations. 26 June 1945. "Article 51." NATO/OTAN On-line Library, . Cronin, Audrey Kurth. 2003. "Behind the Curve: Globalization and International Terrorism." International Security, 27(3), pp. 30-58. Daalder, Ivo. "Policy Implications of the Bush Doctrine on Preemption". CFR.org. . Dockrill , Saki Ruth. 2006. "Dealing with Fear: Implementing the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Attack". Politics e[ Policy, 34 (2), pp. 344-373. Flibbert, Andrew. 2006. "The Road to Baghdad: Ideas and Intellectuals i n Explanations of the Iraq War." Security Studies, 15 (2), pp. 310-352. Freedman, Lawrence. 2001. "The Third World War?" Survival, 43 (4)' PP- 61-88. Freedman, Lawrence. 2003. "Prevention, Not Preemption." The Washington Quarterly, 26 (2). Heisbourg, Francois. 2003. "A Work i n Progress: The Bush Doctrine and its Consequences." The Washington Quarterly, 26 (2). "Iraq figures distort terrorism statistics: study." Reuters, 21 May 2008. . Kesler, Charles R. 2005. "Democracy and the Bush Doctrine." The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, . Krauthammer, Charles. 2004. " I n Defense of Democratic Realism." The National Interest, Fall. National Security Strategy of the United States. 2002. " N . Korea Puts Launch I n Innocuous Terms." The Washington Post, 25 February 2009. . "Occupation has boosted al-Qaida, says thinktank".. The Guardian, 26 May 2004. . Podhoretz, Norman. "Enter the Bush Doctrine." The Wall Street Journal. Sept. 2, 2004. . Reagan, Ronald. 1982. "Speech to the House of Commons." Fordham University Modern History Sourcebook. . "Report: Global terrorism up more than 25 percent." CNN, 30 Apr i l 2007. . "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." The New York Times, 24 September 2006. "Who is Osama bin Laden?" CBC News Online, 19 January 2006. . * A l l online articles accessed on 14-15 March, 2009. Ghumman, Kashif Mumtaz. "Iran-U.S. Relations i n the Post- 9/11 Days: Problems and Prospects." The Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, . E L E M E N T S FALL 09 http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vpoi.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=339&paper=38o http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vpoi.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=339&paper=38o http://www.nato.int/docu/ba-sictxt/bt-un5i.htm http://www.nato.int/docu/ba-sictxt/bt-un5i.htm http://CFR.org http://www.cfr.org/publication/5251/policy_implications_of_the_bush_doctrine_on_preemption.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/5251/policy_implications_of_the_bush_doctrine_on_preemption.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/5251/policy_implications_of_the_bush_doctrine_on_preemption.html http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2139567720080521%20?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsevening http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2139567720080521%20?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsevening http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.i2i8/article_detail.asp http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.i2i8/article_detail.asp http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/o2/24/AR2009022400324.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/o2/24/AR2009022400324.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/2%206%20/%20alqaida.iraq http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/2%206%20/%20alqaida.iraq http://www.opinionjournal.com/%20extra/?id=nooo5558 http://www.opinionjournal.com/%20extra/?id=nooo5558 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1982reagan1.html http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1982reagan1.html http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/terror.report/index.html http://www.cbc.ca/news%20/background/osamabinladen/ http://www.cbc.ca/news%20/background/osamabinladen/ http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2002_files/no_3/article/8a.htm http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2002_files/no_3/article/8a.htm