alfred 2 - University of Winchester

More documents

Recommendations

Info

30 to concepts like preemption, unilateralism, regime change and benevolent hegemony. The Bush administration advanced a foreign policy largely built upon these principles and put them into practice when it attacked Iraq in 2003 as part of a preemptive and unilateral foreign policy, aiming to police Saddam Hussein’s weapons programme and secure American interests in the Gulf. However, branding the Iraq war as purely a product of neoconservative ideology is too simplistic. The Bush administration was not known as neoconservative before the American venture of regime change in Iraq. In fact, neoconservatives were not largely represented in the top tier of the Bush Cabinet. The 2003 Iraq war’s main advocates were actually known as Jacksonian nationalists, who did not adhere to the neoconservative grand vision for a liberal and democratic Middle East. The administration’s key concern was defending the American national interest and security by preventing dictators from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the invasion of Iraq was not the result of a neoconservative hijack of the Bush administration as part of a grand plan to promote democracy in the Middle East. The war is best understood as a conservative nationalist war driven by defensive realism as a consequence of 9/11. References Cheney, D. (2002) Full Text of Dick Cheney’s Speech. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/27/ usa.iraq (Accessed March 2010). David, C.P. (2005) Au Sein de La Maison Blanche: La Formulation de la Politique Étrangère des Etats-Unis. Saint- Nicolas: Presses de L’Universite Laval. Ehrman, J. (1995) Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs 1945-1994. Ann Arbor: Yale University. Frontline (2003) The War Behind Closed Doors. http://www. pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/view/ (Accessed 28th March 2010). Fukuyama, F. (2006) After the Neocons: America at the Crossroads. London: Profile Books. Grieco, J (1988) Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism. International Organisation. 43, 485 – 507. Halper, S. and Clarke, J. (2004) American Alone: The Neoconservatism and the Global Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heilbrunn, J. (2008) They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. New York: Doubleday. Kingdon J.W. (2003) Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown. Kristol, W. and Kagan, R. (2000) Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defence Policy. San Francisco: Encounter. Kristol, W. (1997) Statement of Principles. Project for the New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ statementofprinciple s.htm (Accessed 10th February 2010). Kristol, I. (1983) Reflections of a Neoconservative. New York: Basic Books. Lieven, A. 2009 Pers. Comm. to C. Perlini during interview October 28th 2009. Lieven, A. (2005) America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism. London: Harper Collins. Lindsay, J. (2003) Bush’s Priority in Iraq is Not Democracy. Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/ publication/6517/bushs_prioirty _in_iraq_is_not_democracy. html (Accessed April 2010). Mead, W.R. (2002) Special Providence: American foreign policy and how it changed the world. London: Routledge. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2003) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Nau, H.R. (2002) At Home Abroad: Identity and power in American foreign policy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Project for the New American Century (1998a) How to Attack Iraq. Project for the New American Century http://www. newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov16,98.pdf (Accessed April 2010). Project for the New American Century (1998b) Letter to President Clinton. Project for the New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/ iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm (Accessed 10th February 2010). Santella, A. (2004) The Persian Gulf War. Minneapolis: Compass Point Books. Steinfels, P. (1979) The Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America’s politics. New York: Touchstone. Tyler P. E. (1992) U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop: A One Super Power World. The New York Times http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm (Accessed 28th March 2010). Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House. 31
Page 1: An undergraduate student journal -
Page 4 and 5: 2 Preface It is clear that the Univ
Page 6 and 7: 4 work from both Foundation (FdA) a
Page 8 and 9: 6 highlighted the differences betwe
Page 10 and 11: 8 second was that of all features b
Page 12 and 13: 10 Figure 2: Plan of features in tr
Page 14 and 15: 12 It’s a WRAP! Students experien
Page 16 and 17: 14 our target audience by coming ac
Page 18 and 19: 16 lacked methods through which the
Page 20 and 21: 18 and the historic unpopularity, a
Page 22 and 23: 20 and United Nations opinion sugge
Page 24 and 25: 22 Why has the Solid Democratic Sou
Page 26 and 27: 24 presidential candidates, while S
Page 28 and 29: 26 succeeded in recognising the age
Page 30 and 31: 28 the world. The argument for a mu
Page 34 and 35: 32 Jesus the Posterboy? Healthy Mod
Page 36 and 37: 34 change the focus of the masses t
Page 38 and 39: 36 Dalbey, G. 2003 Healing the Masc
Page 40 and 41: 38 1998. Both sought to promote the
Page 42 and 43: 40 Structure Demographic statistics
Page 44 and 45: 42 Routledge. Commission for Employ
Page 46 and 47: 44 performance coaches must have a
Page 48 and 49: 46 Back from Failure: The interacti
Page 50 and 51: 48 Mapping the British Isles with
Page 52 and 53: 50 laboratory studies (Blades and S
Page 54 and 55: 52 Jackson, P. (2006) Thinking Geog
Page 56 and 57: 54 documenting their achievements m
Page 58 and 59: 56 and opportunities of the communi
Page 60: 58 PAULO (2003) National Occupation

alfred 2 - University of Winchester

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?