The United States, world, George W Bush, Bush, second term, trends, the US, the United States of America, foreign policy establishment, establishment, November 2004, Iraq, administration, negotiations, President, world democratic revolution, democracy, NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization, freedom, Condoleezza Rice, Orange Revolution, NSC National Security Council, globalization, American foreign policy, Iraqi army, 2005, global domination, EU European Union, US United States, UK United Kingdom, the UK, global leadership, secret information, Republican Party, Europe-puissance, US forces, Department of Defense, al-Qaeda, peace, nuclear program, US President, 2003, practical partition, Russia, Iran, military presence
After Bush's re-election in November 2004, there were some doubts about the kind of policy he would now follow, after the occupation of Iraq had revealed itself as a much more difficult undertaking than what the Administration had contemplated.
Many felt at the time the President would vastly alter his foreign policies. But, after all, it did not happen, as we shall see. And one could even wonder whether Iran would not be the next Iraq.
Only recently could one notice signs of a real debate inside the Administration; and of a possible turn towards negotiations with the two countries which, right now, give most trouble to the US. But it is still very uncertain.
[...] There was (and is) yet no political solution in view for Iraq, hence no prospect for a positive end to the crisis. On top of that the situation in Afghanistan had quickly deteriorated, with the Taliban once again controlling parts of the country and heavy fighting between them and NATO troops. It had been noted that just before the election a group of neoconservatives, led by Richard Perle, did not hesitate to admit that the intervention in Iraq was a failure. [...]
[...] Many believe the US should go back to its previous multilateralism, and act through the UN, with NATO and so on. For that view see for instance John Newhouse, Imperial America. The Bush Assault on the World Order, New York, Alfred A. Knopf The most interesting views are those of Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, both quite vocal opponents of Bush's policy. Brzezinski suggests not to try "global domination", but to go for "global leadership", cooperating particularly with the EU, with Russia, with China. (See Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Choice. [...]
[...] It certainly does not renounce the goal of a "New Middle East", but that goal is clearly receding in a distant future . The choice is now Bush's. One month ago (October) many signs pointed to a possible strike against Iran. Those signs have not disappeared, but since about three weeks (the end of October) some signs point to a change of policy, towards the search for a political solution. Much will depend on the attitude of Russia and Iran. [...]
[...] President Bush was re-elected in November 2004, with a clearer majority than in 2000. But, despite that fact, American foreign policy became more difficult to analyze, because of the many problems, domestic and in Iraq, met by the Administration in the first year of his second term. There were two diverging views: The Administration had increased the scope of its "regime change" and democratization agenda. To the contrary Bush II had become more prudent, more realist, more ready to work with NATO and the European Union, less unilateralist. [...]
[...] The United States and the World: Bush's Second Term and Current Trends in the US Foreign Policy Establishment Introduction After Bush's re-election in November 2004, there were some doubts about the kind of policy he would now follow, after the occupation of Iraq had revealed itself as a much more difficult undertaking than what the Administration had contemplated. Many felt at the time the President would vastly alter his foreign policies. But, after all, it did not happen, as we shall see. [...]
APA Style referenceFor your bibliography
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee