Essay about The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists - Review

Words: 1282
Pages: 6

I intend to review “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists” by Brian C. Schmidt and Michael C. Williams. The reason for choosing this article for review is simply because of its relevance today throughout the Middle East and how the American foreign policy is drastically changing the dynamics of the world.
Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling
…show more content…
They use elements of the Bush Doctrine to demonstrate the tactics used by neoconservatives to persuade the American public towards supporting the invasion of Iraq. Drawing on these elements is a very intriguing technique and draws the reader in.
The authors point out from the offset that the Bush Doctrines goal was for the United States “to preserve its hegemonic position for the indefinite future.” This is a brash statement demonstrates neoconservative’s belief in a unipolar America. By referring to the Bush Doctrine in this article the authors demonstrate the idealistic notions of neoconservatives and their belief that America “leadership as a prerequisite for an orderly and peaceful world.” The authors use a brilliant quote to depict the neoconservatives ultimately naïve and unipolar view that ‘one-size fits all’:
“American hegemony is the only reliable defence against a breakdown of peace and international order.”
The authors cleverly reproduce a metaphor used by Mearsheimer: “Wilsonism with teeth” which brilliantly depicts neoconservatives’ absolute belief in unilateralism and America being the sole superpower. It captured my attention as a reader drawing me in to the article. Schmidt and Williams make reference to Walt’s argument: “how can other states be comfortable and secure when U.S. decisions affect all of their interests, and when