The Jervis Analysis of the Bush Doctrine

Robert Jervis delivers an article examining the decisions the Bush administration made leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and how those decisions correspond with the general outlook the United States takes when approaching international politics. However, his viewpoints on what the Bush doctrine is versus what we typically would accept widely as American foreign policy, blatantly show the contradictions and alternative routes that our former president dared to travel in journey to us winding up buried deep within the Middle East with no clear line of exit. In analyzing the line of thinking strongly upheld by the Bush administration and supporters of the Iraq War even up until our current times, Jervis is able to demonstrate why American foreign policy is unlike any the world has seen, and why our specific nature in this country played a strong role in the ultimate push for war. He also explains why the type of government that is run widely in the Middle East is a factor that draws our interest in as a nation, and how taking a look at what the Bush administration projected into the American consciousness is really a factor of ideology. Jervis would take the stance that to best understand what we would distinctly label the Bush doctrine and the mindset that this nation was represented under from 2001 to 2009, we have to take a look at it through second level analysis.

The second level of analysis is a way of looking at issues and policies based upon ideals, ethics, and a collectivist view that what happens internationally with a nation-state is good for the whole of that state or the world. The American spirit and the American sense of nationalism are unparalleled throughout most, if not all, of the rest of the world. Perhaps it could be the youth of this nation’s identity, and that we really don’t have nearly the amount of history as a country that others do. But I feel, and what Jervis is largely saying as well, is that that amount of nationalism is projected because of the rhetoric our government uses.  This led largely into the concepts of the Bush doctrine and how that shaped U.S. foreign policy. Consistently during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was largely across the airwaves that terrorists were being held in these regions and the reason for that was because of their dictatorial and oppressive governments. The terrorism was largely bred out of the mindset of those governments, and terrorists chose to harbor themselves in those regions because of this. The ideals of the people were not necessarily skewed, but those who were in power were largely out of line, and by the Bush administration’s responsive actions, it was fairly clear they believed the only way to break that frame of mind was to spread democracy. Jervis would exclaim this is largely irresponsible because democracy cannot be spread by force, and it was only the Bush and American attitude that made this become even a possible solution–a “proud to be an American” spirit and a president that also distinctly embodied that theme. Given the power we hold within our military and armed forces, it wasn’t out of the question that this was a possibility, and given a reasonable enough rationale through the occurrences on September 11th and the pushed link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration was, at first, nearly unanimously allowed to exercise their thrust for democracy across the Middle East.