Authors note: After reading the article, ask yourself if the Bush Doctrine (following 9/11 & the Patriot Act of 2001) is following the Founders’ Constitution or the Progressive Constitution?
The Bush Doctrine, which emerged during the George W. Bush administration following the 9/11 attacks, emphasized preemptive action against perceived threats, particularly so-called terrorism and rogue states.
This approach marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy and raised constitutional questions regarding the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, as well as adherence to the original intent of the Constitution.
“Kesler, a prominent political theorist and editor of the Claremont Review of Books, argues that there are now two competing visions of the Constitution: the original Founders’ Constitution, rooted in natural rights and limited government, and the Progressive Constitution, which advocates for an evolving, more activist government.” — (Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness)
The Original Intent of the Constitution in Foreign Policy and War Powers
The U.S. Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the President:
- Congress: Holds the power to declare war, raise and support armies, and regulate military forces (Article I, Section 8).
- President: Serves as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2).
The Framers intended this division to prevent unilateral decisions about war and ensure deliberation and accountability. The focus was on defensive actions, allowing Congress to debate and declare war when necessary, while giving the President the authority to respond to immediate threats.
The Bush Doctrine’s Shift in Policy
The Bush Doctrine (The Facade of the Neocons: Left, Pushed the Republican Party to Promote the American & Global System), articulated in the 2002 National Security Strategy, introduced key principles, including:
- Preemptive Action: The U.S. reserves the right to strike first against nations or groups perceived as threats, even if the threat is not imminent.
- Unilateralism: Willingness to act without international consensus if U.S. security is at stake.
- Spreading Democracy: A commitment to promoting democracy as a means of ensuring global stability.
(1)
This policy represented a significant departure from previous doctrines, such as containment or deterrence, which relied on responding to threats rather than proactively eliminating them.
Precedent Against the Original Intent
The Bush Doctrine raised constitutional concerns because it concentrated significant power in the executive branch, arguably undermining the Framers’ intent of checks and balances.
- There Are Two Types of Power: Concentrated (Centralized) & Separated
- There Are Really Only Two Types of Government: Republic & Oligarchy
Here’s how it set a precedent against the Constitution’s original framework:
A. Expansion of Executive Power
- Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): After 9/11, Congress passed the AUMF (2001), granting the President broad authority to use force against those responsible for the attacks or harboring terrorists. This effectively ceded much of Congress’s war-declaring power to the executive branch.
- Preemptive Strikes: The doctrine justified military actions like the invasion of Iraq (2003) based on the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), even though no imminent threat was present. This stretched the concept of self-defense beyond its traditional bounds.
- Revisiting The Iraq Racket: After 9/11/01
- The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear
B. Undermining Congressional Oversight
- The Constitution requires Congress to deliberate and decide on war, ensuring that the use of force is a collective decision. The Bush Doctrine’s focus on preemption allowed the President to bypass this process, as decisions were often framed as urgent and necessary for national security.
C. Questionable Adherence to International Law
- The Bush Doctrine’s emphasis on preemptive action contradicted international norms, particularly the United Nations Charter, which permits the use of force only in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. This departure from multilateralism further centralized decision-making in the executive branch.
Long-Term Implications
The Bush Doctrine established a precedent that continues to influence U.S. foreign policy, with several implications for constitutional governance:
A. Erosion of the War Powers Clause
The AUMF and the Bush Doctrine blurred the lines between Congress’s power to declare war and the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief. Subsequent presidents have relied on these precedents to conduct military operations without explicit congressional approval (e.g., drone strikes, interventions in Libya and Syria).
B. Expansion of Surveillance and Domestic Security Measures
- The Patriot Act and other post-9/11 measures expanded executive authority over domestic surveillance, raising concerns about the erosion of constitutional protections like the Fourth Amendment.
- Deconstruction and Deprogramming of 9/11 and the Continual Social Engineered Narrative
C. Judicial Deference to the Executive
- Courts have generally deferred to the executive branch on matters of national security, further entrenching the President’s ability to act unilaterally in areas traditionally subject to checks and balances.
Counterarguments and Defenses Argument
Supporters of the Bush Doctrine argue:
Evolving Threats Require Flexibility: The Framers could not have foreseen modern threats like terrorism and rogue states with WMDs, necessitating a more proactive (False Flag) approach.
- Preparing the Chessboard for the “Clash of Civilizations”: Divide, Conquer and Rule the “New Middle East”
- History: How the US Installed a Proxy “Brotherhood” Government in Egypt
- The Road to Tehran Goes Through Damascus: Military Escalation. Towards a Broader Middle East-Central Asian War?
- Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIS-ISIL-Daesh) that the U.S. Government Does Not Want You to Know About
- America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
- The Islamic State (ISIS), the Pentagon’s “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”
- Global Warfare: “We’re Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”
- Syrian War-Islamic State (ISIS) Creation Timeline
- The Redrawing of the Map of the Middle East Begins with the Destruction of Iraq
Congress Retains Oversight: While the President leads in emergencies, Congress still controls funding for military actions and can pass legislation to limit executive authority.
National Security Priority: In a post-9/11 world, ensuring security may require actions that stretch traditional constitutional interpretations.
Evaluating the Precedent
The Bush Doctrine’s emphasis on preemption and executive power deviated from the Constitution’s original intent to create a system of checks and balances in matters of war and peace. By centralizing authority in the executive branch and reducing the role of Congress, it set a precedent for future administrations to act unilaterally, raising concerns about accountability and constitutional governance.
However, the changing nature of global threats challenges the original framework, suggesting the need for ongoing debate about how to balance constitutional principles with modern security demands.
(1) U.S. Government
Additional resources:
- American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection, and the Road to Afghanistan
- Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs, and the Press
- The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade
- Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
- Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia
