Faculté des Lettres et des Langues

Permanent URI for this community

https://depo.univ-annaba.dz//handle/123456789/9

Browse

Browsing Faculté des Lettres et des Langues by Author "BRAHMI, Halima"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Critical Study for the American National Strategy: Bush’s National Security Strategy
    (2012) BRAHMI, Halima
    This study examines the changes that have been taking place in the American non proliferation policy under President W. Bush. The traditional non-proliferation policy which was characterized by diplomacy and Treaty regime has been substituted by the military counter-proliferation policy which focused on the extreme use of force against “rogue regimes”. The American preeminence in the post-Cold War led it to search for an absolute security in order to preserve the American vital interests in the world. The American search for an absolute security was culminated in George W. Bush presidency, in which the U.S put the focus on just “rogue states” that were considered as major threat to the American security. Threats of Proliferation of WMD and terrorism were considered as so risky to the American and global security. Putting the focus on Iraq as the most dangerous “ rogue state” was not for the sake of disarmament in the Middle East region, but mainly for changing Saddam Hussein regime which started to be a serious enemy to the American vital interests from the end of the Gulf War. This work focuses on elucidating the misleading points which coincided with the “preemptive” counter-proliferation when implemented against Iraq in 2003. Under the pretext of disarming Iraq and diminishing the threat of proliferation of WMD in the Middle East, the US embarked on an aggressive preventive war as an appropriate tool to seek its objectives of regime change and controlling Iraq. After the 9/11 attacks, it seems appropriate to declare Iraq as a state sponsoring terrorism to prove the alleged imminence of the threat. This study, therefore, reveals how the American war against Iraq 2003, was waged according to assumptions and miscalculations prepared by extremist neo-conservatives. It reveals how it is illegal to wage a war against an adversary without clear evidence for the threat. This paper examines the role of the extremist doctrine of neo-conservatives to open the door for the use of force to deal with Iraq, through conspiracy and over-estimating the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) proliferation threat. It also shows how the war against Iraq did not fall in the justified preemptive self-defense criteria, but instead it fell in the illegal preventive war. The study focuses on showing the misleading points of the American “preemptive” counter-proliferation policy. It shows how the war against Iraq did not fall in the justified preemptive self-defense criteria, but instead it fell in the illegal preventive war. As a central conclusion, the study reveals how it was misleading the American “preemptive” counter proliferation which seemed not to focus on the disarmament of Iraq, but rather on exercising unlimited hegemony in Iraq and the Middle East. It also elucidates how the American “preemptive” counter-proliferation policy will work as a “carte blanche” not just for imitating the U.S unjustified use of force, but also on marginalizing the international norms governing the use of force. Through its implementation to the “preemptive” counter-proliferation towards Iraq, the U.S may face much more anti Americanism, and this may make its attempt to reshape the Middle East, for the sake of preserving its interests, a lost quest.