36º Encontro Anual da Anpocs

GT 12 – Estudos sobre estados Unidos


Maria Helena de Castro Santos

Ulysses Tavares Teixeira

Águas de Lindóia – SP
21 a 25 de outubro de 2012


Maria Helena de Castro Santos
(University of Brasilia)

Ulysses Tavares Teixeira
(University of Brasilia)


Everyone knows that democracy played a role in the Bush Doctrine. What not everyone
knows is that this role was essential for the doctrine to be put into operation under which
the Iraq invasion was prepared and launched. Preemptive War was the rocket, democracy
was the fuel. This is the argument of the paper here presented. To demonstrate it we will
recur to the analysis of the links between democracy, security and the national interests
of the United States as well as to the American belief in the universal values of
democracy, as pillars of American foreign policy since the post-Cold War period. The
consequential belief of the Bush administration on the positive effect of exporting
democracy by the use of force to Afghanistan and Iraq will be remarked. Finally, it will
be shown that among the justifications for the military interventions in the two countries,
exporting of democracy prevailed over other short-run objectives like destroying Al
Qaeda’s headquarters, ousting Saddam Hussein from power or removing weapons of
mass destruction. The paper will use quantitative and qualitative content analysis of the
speeches of President Bush and his Secretaries of State and Defense.

Prepared for Panel on “Studies about the United States – International Politics and
Security,” Anpocs, Águas de Lindóia-SP, October 21-25, 2012.


Everyone knows that democracy played a role in the Bush Doctrine. What not everyone
knows is that this role was essential for the doctrine to be put into operation under which
the Iraq invasion was prepared and launched. Preemptive War was the rocket, democracy
was the fuel. This is the argument of the paper here presented.

In fact, George W. Bush was the president of the post-Cold War era who very explicitly
made use of the most radical means of exporting democracy – the use of force. He did so
by placing the exporting of democracy into the core of his National Defense Policy and
making of it a fundamental pillar of his foreign policy doctrine after 9/11.

For sure there were other American military interventions in the post-Cold War period,
but in none of them the primary goal was that of exporting democracy to the target


country.1 This is because the basic weapon to fight terrorism as defined by Bush’s
defense and foreign policies was democracy.

We will argue moreover that even an aggressive doctrine like Bush’s is totally
compatible with American Liberal Tradition (cf. Hartz, 1955) and the corresponding
principles that can be identified in the foreign policies doctrines of the post-Cold War

By analyzing the speeches of Presidents George W. Bush, Secretaries of State Colin
Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert
Gates, we seek to demonstrate that among the motivations and justifications for the
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, to bring democracy to those societies was the main
goal of the doctrine and that the liberal principles can be identified especially along the
Iraq war.

The first session of the paper will deal with the importance of the external vis-à-vis
internal variables for the promotion of democracy analyzed by the Third Wave
democratization literature.

The second session will present democracy and its links to security in the Bush Doctrine
as well as in the principles referred to the American liberal tradition that constitute the
pillars of the foreign policies of the Presidents of the post-Cold War period, including

The third session will bring the empirical analysis of the motives and justifications for
the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the speeches of the President and his
Secretaries of State and Defense.

In a previous work we analyzed the role democracy fulfilled in the American military interventions in the
post-Cold War period: Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. See Castro Santos, MH and
Teixeira, U. T., Exporting Democracy as Foreign Policy: Peace, Security and the American Military
Interventions in the Post-Cold War World. Paper presented at the Third World International Studies
Conference (WISC), Porto, August 17-20,2011.
Those principles were empirically identified in Castro Santos, MH, “Exportação de democracia na
política externa norte-americana no pós-guerra fria: doutrinas e o uso da força”, Revista Brasileira de
Política Internacional, 53(1), 157-191, 2010. We will refer to them in session three of this paper.


all the peoples in the world want to turn democratic. 2010. And even 3 Cf. State of the Union. I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. but on the contrary it can thrive everywhere.1992). moreover. All of them rejected Huntington’s. Let us very briefly review what the literature tells us about this matter. For sure. 3 . Shared by decision-makers and social scientists alike. that democracy is not historically or culturally bound. therefore. who spoke of a multicultural world where cleavages along cultural and religious lines would put obstacles to democratization in Confucian and Islamic societies. 1991). So did their Secretaries of State and Defense. op. all the Presidents of the post-Cold War period believed that the triumph in the Cold War was a proof of the superiority of democracy over communism and that there was no other system of values and principles in the world that could rival with “the wisdom of our nation’s founders” (Bush Father. The American victory in the Cold War reinforced the belief that the values and principles of the Western liberal democracy were universal and. Yet it is mistaken and condescending to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government.who faced the non-less important critique by Huntington (1996). In fact. it certainly would be impossible to take the decision to militarily invade two Islamic countries and there establish democracies without very clearly rejecting Huntington’s thesis.I. EXTERNAL VARIABLES IN THE EXPORTING OF DEMOCRACY AND THE UNIVERSALITY OF DEMOCRATIC VALUES Foreign policy decision-makers must believe in the greater importance of external vis-à- vis internal variables in the exporting of democracy. cit. They must believe. so to speak. Castro Santos.3 Coming to the Bush administration. this belief was strongly backed up by the influential ideas of Fukuyama (1989. where freedom is rare. cultural warning in their speeches in various occasions in various ways. in his speech of the State of Union in 2004 Bush said: We also hear doubts that democracy is an unrealistic goal for the greater Middle East.

it will rise again. however. considered that domestic factors played a role much more important than external variables in the democratization 4 process. when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades. This consensus was broken with the democratic transitions of the communist countries in the 90’s. a value system that says democracy works and it is not restricted to western cultures or to the United States. October. Farer (1996). State of Union. Speech at the Institute of Peace on US efforts to assist the people of Iraq. an author of the exporting of democracy literature. a value system that has fueled this nation for so many hundred of years and is fueling so many other nations around the world. Bush. the Secretary of the State added in another speech: “There’s no reason that democracy can’t work in Afghanistan (…)” (Remarks at the Southern Center for International Studies. which examined the cases of South Europe in the 70’s and of South America’s in the next decade. with the values system that: (…) is still respected around the world. (George W. Huntington (1996). 4 . Georgia. referring to Iraq. Atlanta. when external stimuli were prominent. (Colin Powell. Washington. but above all. 2004). 2004) Colin Powell. says that foreign actors can contribute a great deal to the defense and strengthening of democracy and that after the Cold War the tolerance for external interventions grew significantly. If “democracy is not restricted to western cultures” and therefore there is no reason that democracy cannot work in Afghanistan or Iraq. 2004) Therefore. 4 The basic reference is O’Donnell and Schmitter (1988). warns that even when external factors create favorable conditions for democracy building this will only occur if domestic conditions exist – adequate level of economic development and political leadership compromised with democratic values. it still remains to answer the question: can democracy be imposed from outside? How much do external vis-à-vis internal variables influence the construction of democracy? The first generation of the democratization literature. affirmed that the United States would there fight terrorism with all national power elements.

one can say that starting the communist. with numerous fragmentations processes. It believed. 5 . A typical pattern is the military imposition of democracy after short wars. the post-Cold War democratic transitions occurred many times in weak and vulnerable states. However. there identifying the essential role of democracy. The Bush administration was for sure a believer in the capacity of military intervention for opening the way to craft democracy in the two rogue sates invaded by the United States. “international factors can be expected to play a stronger and more directive role in democratization” (p. DEMOCRACY IN THE BUSH FOREIGN POLICY AND IN THE DEFENSE POLICY DOCTRINES This section will present the basic pillars of the foreign policy doctrine in the post-Cold War period and the Bush defense policy.countries transitions in the years 1990. In those cases. II. moreover. Summing up.Whitehead (2005) contests the downplaying of the external-variables influence in democracy building stated by the first generation literature arguing that this generation came to that conclusion because it based its analysis on transitions that occurred inside the limits of Westphalian-consolidated states. even if unilateral.6). the significant influence of external variables on democracy building came to be recognized. although in different degrees. that democracy could thrive in any historical-cultural context. This will help to understand the military invasions of the Middle East and to demonstrate our argument. This is an academic backup of great importance for the foreign-policy and defense-policy decision-makers who decide to export democracy by the use of force. are efficacious as far as building democracy is concerned. if there is no consensus in the literature. They must believe and make the society believe that the American military interventions. among which Whitehead includes what he calls Western interventions in Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003). says the author.

Twenty years later. The exceptionalist hypotheses seemed to be right. Three principles and one American mission. Packenham analyzed the doctrines that regulated American foreign aid to Third World countries and the theories that guided these policies (Modernization theory) between 1947 and 1968. Therefore. one of the greatest advantages of this moment was the opportunity for America. the promotion of democracy is for the good of mankind. to start basing its foreign policy doctrine on the liberal principles. were recurrent in the speeches: (1) The values and principles of the western liberal democracy are universal. based on Hartz’s The Liberal Tradition in America (1955). Using quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 415 speeches of the first three post- Cold War Presidents and their Secretaries of State. Following Packenham (1973). Packenham (1973) worked on the hypotheses presented by the scholars of American exceptionalism. the fall of soviet communism and the end of the Cold War signaled a strong shift in the world order. 6 . all peoples of the world wish to become democratic. in the absence of visible threats. in the post-Cold War world.THE PILLARS OF THE FOREIGN POLICIES DOCTRINES IN THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD In the 1970’s. and showed that both the foreign policy doctrines presented by the American Cold War governments and the theories produced by social scientists on the field of political development shared the same core of values based on the American Liberal Tradition. According to Farer (1996). referred to the American Liberal Tradition as well. Castro Santos (2010) believes it is possible to show that. Castro Santos (2010) identifies the pillars of American foreign policy doctrines that justify the exporting of democracy even by the use of force – the most difficult means to be used in the name of democracy. After four decades of bipolar disputes. that is. both the democratization theory and American democracy promotion policies are also based on the same core values. the American victory was interpreted as translating the superiority of the American Way of Life. without having to incur in the American Cold War ambiguities between values and interests. so to speak.

Marked by the promotion of an “Americanised” world order. decided that the liberal internationalist strategy which had prevailed in the previous government was no longer appropriate to represent the international aspirations of the American people. principle one assumes that. Here democracy is linked to the security and the economic interests of the United States. Americans will therefore free them. exporting democracy means to promote regional and even global peace. by the second principle. Here democracy is linked to regional and global peace. This is because. (3) The promotion of democracy makes the world safer and more prosperous for the United States. Bush and his aides think moreover that a democratic Iraq would help regime change in the Middle East and. In the Bush administration the third principle is crucial to justify invasions to Afghanistan and Iraq: it assumes that the US and the world for that matter will only be safe when those rogue states become democratic. in the long run. given that authoritarian states harbor terrorists and produce weapons of mass destruction. American intervention does not have an evil nature. (2) Democracies do not fight each other. A more detailed account of the use of those principles by Bush and their Secretaries of State will be seen in the next section. Iraqis and Afghans want to become democratic. 7 . and give them the democratic life they have deserved and desired for such a long time. like all the peoples of the world. and not America’s military predominance. was the key to creating a friendlier world order characterized by the spread of democratic governments and open markets. the region would become more peaceful. THE BUSH DOCTRINE When George W. Clinton’s grand strategy believed that a strong set of multilateral institutions. with his foreign policy team. On the contrary. the weapon to fight terrorism is democracy. Besides. Bush assumed the presidency of the United States in 2001 he. Therefore. Mission: The Americans think of themselves as having a mission to bring freedom and democracy to mankind.

June 28. and for treating China as a “strategic competitor” instead of a “strategic partner”6. for example. 8 . They also made explicit their concern over any erosion of American sovereignty through potential membership to multilateral agreements such as the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Protocol. October 11. 79:1 (January/February 2000). for example. Richard Armitage. The well known neoconservative movement was strongly represented in the administration. Richard Hass and Condoleezza Rice were openly against idealistic campaigns in foreign policy issues. the way Bush thought about how the world worked. Bush was skeptical of multilateralism and unrelenting toward potential adversaries. against negotiations with North Korea. 5 Condoleezza Rice quoted in: “American power: The hobbled hegemon”. The defense of the new approach would also become very clear by the words of the President himself: “When it comes to foreign policy. Foreign Affairs. 2-14. and the press talked about divergences between the State Department and the Pentagon7. He and his advisors argued. But they were not able to influence the foreign policy doctrine in their favor in the first few months of government. and called for a less interventionist approach with regard to internal affairs of other countries. such as Collin Powell. 18:3 (Fall 2001). “Don’t fence me in: the perils of going it alone”. We don't need to have the 82nd Airborne escorting kids to kindergarten”5. Paul Wolfowitz. Condoleezza Rice. His National Security Adviser. especially by Donald Rumsfeld. North Carolina. he stated he would be more selective in relation to the use of force. Among his several campaign promises. John Bolton. Other presidential advisers.That was not. 6 Condoleezza Rice. 7 Stewart Patrick. 2007. Dick Cheney. that’ll be my guiding question: is it in our nation’s interests?” (Presidential Debate in Winston-Salem. Douglas Feith. The administration adopted strategic adjustments that focused on supposedly “vital national interests”. World Policy Journal. He criticized his predecessor for engaging in nation-building and humanitarian interventions overseas. Elliot Abrams e Lewis Libby. however. 2000) To summarize. “Promoting the National Interest”. towards a more realist foreign policy strategy. for a more detached approach to Russia. said about the nation-building operation in the Balkans that “carrying out civil administration and police functions is simply going to degrade the American capability to do the things America has to do. There were certainly different understandings of the international system inside the government. p. The Economist.

on the day of the terrorist attacks to New York and Washington. it proposed that America should “defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants…. the President showed little interest to the radical and aggressive neoconservative political agenda. “our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice”. although important in themselves. as synthesized on the 2002 National Security Strategy’s foreword. This strategy represented a radical change in the President’s initial world view and. Bush’s first innovation was to identify both terrorists and tyrants (and a connection between them) as the new threats. Weapons of Mass Destruction were the last resort during the Cold War. Bush decided to adopt the neoconservative approach embracing a far-reaching and proactive foreign policy based on American military power. and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons. Every debate and criticism ceased. American foreign policy would change its world view. the immediacy of today’s threats. Since containment and deterrence would not work against this new threat. Rogue states and 9 . do not permit that option. are even more noteworthy as manifestations of this new strategy which became known as the Bush Doctrine. the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker. After a dramatic review of his grand strategy.Above all. The excitement brought by victory on the Cold War had discouraged American leaders to confront threats posed by this new type of enemy. preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers…. [and] extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent”. however. From that point on. whose weapon of choice (terrorist attacks). while today. where not exactly understood by a defense system prepared for the conventional war. Obviously influenced by September 11. We cannot let our enemies strike first… We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. an element of preemption had to be added to the defense strategy: Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists. The American military interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). the NSS points out.

World Policy Institute . act preemptively. if necessary. Of course. mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction… To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries. if necessary. as described by Castro Santos (2010) for the post-Cold War foreign policies doctrines. was never a real prerequisite of the doctrine.worldpolicy. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security. So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture. defense spending increased dramatically for the first time since the 1980’s. 1955) once more prevailed. multilateralism. with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.html>. the American government was determined to act unilaterally whenever necessary: “we will not hesitate to act alone. At last. Available at: <http://www. 2005) 8 Michelle Ciarrocca and William D.Research Project. (NSS. (Inaugural Speech.org/projects/arms/news/SpendingDOD911. Hartung. were not seen as ideals. to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country”. the United States will. Only in a democratic environment the United States would be really safe: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. 2002) The National Security Strategy also included a preference for multilateral action: “The United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community”. the Bush Doctrine pointed to the only definitive solution to the problem of removing the causes of terrorism and tyranny: democracy. The principles and values of liberal democracy. which eventually assumed the form of a “coalition of the willing”. 10 . To do that. (…) Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists. Actually. 2002. “Report: Increases in Military Spending and Security Assistance Since 9/11”. The American Liberal Tradition (Hartz. and the calling of our time. but as effective and pragmatic tools against such threats. terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means… As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11. this time embodied in a most radical strategy: preemptive war. reaching U$400 bi in 20038. 2001. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Asserting American hegemony became necessary to put into work a foreign policy doctrine based on unilateral preemptive action.

. 11 . Abraham Lincoln. 2005). on the Terrorist Attacks).. the building of a democratic system of values and principles in the target countries was the normative element which completed the Bush foreign policy doctrine and especially his defense doctrine. 2011. and the Iraq war in particular. PRINCIPLES.. It started on September 11. October 13. we are spreading the hope of freedom” (State of the Union. itself. A free Iraq will deny Al Qaida a safe haven. Louisiana.S. will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran.S. tyranny). when he already interprets the phenomenon in liberal terms saying that “Freedom. Where freedom takes hold. 2008). December 14. weapons of mass destruction. hatred gives way to hope” (Address to the Nation on Iraq From the U. Exporting democracy to the Middle East was the single solution to every identifiable threat (terrorism. “[T]he most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy by advancing liberty across a troubled region” (Address to the Nation on the War on Terror in Iraq. was attacked this morning by a faceless coward. and continues through both of his terms: “The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. “The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror and replace hatred with hope is the force of human freedom” (State of the Union... 2003). “[A] free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. MOTIVES AND JUSTIFICATIONS IN THE MILITARY INTERVENTIONS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ In this section our task is to demonstrate that although other short-run motives and justifications for the invasions in the Middle East existed and even prevailed over democracy. “Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty” (Address to the Nation on the Capture of Saddam Hussein. 2003). and freedom will be defended” (Remarks at Barksdale Air Force Base. January 10. III. 2007). soon after the president learns about the attacks.. “[F]or the security of America and the peace of the world.This direct connection established by Bush between promoting democracy and assuring American national interests became indispensible to justify his foreign policy doctrine in general. May 1st. This idea was repeatedly defended by the President in his speeches to the Congress and to the Nation. unleash the talent of its people. and be an anchor of stability in the region” (Address to the Nation on the War on Terror in Iraq. 2007). will marginalize extremists.

when given the chance.S. 2005). became an important part of the American response to the terrorist threat. and sustain itself [after the American withdrawal]” (Address to the Nation on the War on Terror From Fort Bragg. Smith. U. Its defense is very explicit in the speeches of the administration. Army. as proposed here. the declared objective was to establish a state that could “defend itself. September 11. 2004. what few have ever even tried before.” American forces have accomplished what few have before -. 2006) In this “long war. Feulner (Truman- Reagan Medal of Freedom Awards Ceremony). Tyranny has to be imposed. U. The exporting of democracy was elevated to the category of defining principle of the foreign policy doctrine and. April 05. Just like the Cold War doctrines analyzed by Packenham (1973).PRINCIPLES After 9/11 the Bush administration started to define American security in terms of its capacity to influence societies and domestic political structures in rogue states. October 11. In both cases. 2001. 2008). November 14. National Press Club. May 31. 2006. Wreath Laying Ceremony. 2004. September 10. Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld: [D]emocracy does not have to be imposed. as shown by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.S. for example. Tribute to Edwin J. Memorial Service in Remembrance of Those Lost on September 11th. will choose a future of freedom and peace” (State of the Union. Our country has sent its finest young men and women in defense of the ideal that people. 12 . (Donald Rumsfeld. 2005. Air Force Academy Commencement. as show. March 12. Opening Remarks by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Before the House International Relations Committee.indeed. 2004. the Bush Doctrine has a very optimistic vision of progress in regard of the possibilities to influence democratic transitions in the international system. Such optimism can be explained by the belief in the universality of democratic values – the first principle of American foreign policy doctrines in the post-Cold War. Medal of Honor Ceremony for Sergeant First Class Paul R. Men and women long for liberty. govern itself. February 16. 2006)9 9 For similar statements see: Donald Rumsfeld. June 28. Pentagon Town Hall Meeting. will forever choose freedom. when faced with paths leading to either tyranny or freedom. (Condoleezza Rice. Bush truly seems to believe that the Afghan and Iraqi people longed for democracy: “Our foreign policy is based on a clear premise: We trust that people.

they [the people] would like to be able to constrain the arbitrary power of government. and those who want to continue in tyranny11 (George W. But it is the birthright as well of every person. Diamond (2003) explains this relation: Given a choice. Remarks At the Council on Foreign Relations. even if the word may have different (or unsure) meanings in many places. woman. but the doctrine is pretty consistent. America is truly the light of liberty and the hope of the world. A logical consequence of this kind of thought became a powerful justification for the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq: overthrowing the authoritarian regimes would mean to liberate the people from years of repression. 2008). and child wants to be free. The Clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. I think we have to fight back on the notion that somehow you have to be educated. This rhetoric might look like a conceptual stretching of democracy. This is something we've always known to be true. September 11. The conceit isn't for us to argue that every man.This principle was also used to respond to the critics of those who believed in the existence of obstacles to democratization imposed by cultural or religious features of certain peoples10: And so. June 19. The conceit is to argue that men. to have a predictable and secure life under some kind of just rule of law. October 1. The 2002 National Security Strategy describes this idea by saying that “Fathers and mothers in all societies want their children to be educated and to live free from poverty and violence. To those millions in those places. New York: Simon & Schuster. Remarks at the Community of Democracies UNGA Event. That's the conceit. or a certain nationality to want the simple blessings of liberty. 2007. aspire to servitude. and children don't want to be free. or a certain religion. 1996. (Donald Rumsfeld. or you have to be of a certain color. 11 For similar statements see: Condoleezza Rice. 2003) 10 See: Samuel Huntington. Bush. torture and aggression: Freedom is the birthright of every American. We know that to be so. And it's usually the conceit of those who want to control them. to replace bad and corrupt leaders. given to all but denied to many by tyrants. When one assembles these basic political preferences. 13 . or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police”. a gift of God. Patriot Day Observance. No people on earth yearn to be oppressed. women. by dictators who place their own power above human dignity and even human life. it begins to look an awful lot like democracy.

Powell links the establishment of a democracy in Afghanistan with security: “Afghanistan is a high priority for this Administration. and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. (Address to the Nation on Iraq. This means that when Bush proposed to democratize Iraq he was also thinking about world peace: The United States has no right. with governments that answer to their citizens and reflect their own cultures. Abraham Lincoln. June 28. Bush. She even says the use of force might be necessary sometimes. no more torture chambers and rape rooms. there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors. 2006. May 1.According to this humanitarian justification for war. 2004). democratizing those countries would be a certain way to help their people. Address to the Nation on the War on Terror From Fort Bragg. We will tear down the apparatus of terror.S. Address to the Nation on Iraq From the U. According to this principle. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors.. 2003) It was also believed that a democratic form of government representing all the people of Iraq would live in peace with its neighbors and be a responsible nation. no more poison factories. 14 . March 28. In a free Iraq. we will deliver the food and medicine you need.S. The tyrant will soon be gone. March 17. The United States is committed to helping build a stable and democratic Afghanistan that is free from terror and no longer harbors threats to our security” (The President's Budget Request For FY 2005. only democracy could guarantee that the country would no longer threaten its neighbors or serve as a refuge for terrorists. That is the second principle of the Liberal Tradition on the Bush Doctrine. as Bush says: As our coalition takes away their power. the advance of freedom will lead to peace. February 26. and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. no desire. North Carolina. democracies are less prone to engage in wars against each other. no more executions of dissidents. 2005)12 For the Bush government. 2005. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations. but just democracy can put a definitive end to terrorism: 12 For similar statements see: George W. The day of your liberation is near. 2006. September 11.). (State of the Union. Rice helps constructing the justifications for invading Iraq linking the threat of terrorism to the democratic solution: “And we believe that the ideology of hatred which [the terrorists] espouse can only be met by advancing liberty and democracy”(FY 2007 Budget Request for the Department of State and Foreign Operations.. Address to the Nation on the War on Terror. 2003.

(Donald Rumsfeld. and depriving them of their sanctuaries. 2005. secure.and capturing or killing them. answers to this critic: Realist thinkers often contend that such tangible national interests conflict with our moral or idealistic interest in democracy and human rights. Certainly we will confront painful tensions and trade-offs. 15 . free and prosperous America… Precisely because they respect within their own borders competition. March 18. the development of well-governed democratic states that can deliver for their people. August 02. However. August 04. U. there’s a great debate between realists and idealists. that they represent the true vision of Islam. They do not. believes the expansion of American interests is only possible through the expansion of democracy: “American hegemony – the unipolar era – is extended in time by the extension in space of democracy. ultimately. and the rule of law. March 21. we're confronting terrorists -. May 29. success will depend on advancing the cause of freedom and democracy as an alternative to the grim vision of the terrorists. Rolling Thunder. February 07. (International Affairs FY 2008 Budget. Diamond (1994). the betterment of the lives of the people. Owen (2006). 2005. Los Angeles World Affairs Council. 2005. 14 For similar statements see: Donald Rumsfeld. October 24. We may. and the now- tested vision of free societies. for example. 2007. Munich Conference on European Security Policy. This war of ideas is at the heart of the war on terror -- a conflict between a totalitarian ideology of the extremists. Dallas Chamber of Commerce. Policy in the Middle East. as for instance in Afghanistan. but it is really the development of institutions. 2004. in fact. for his part. democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be build. where each group defends that American foreign policy should be guided either by its interests or by its values. But the democratization literature that validates the Bush doctrine does not see this contradiction. Democracy is not just a 13 For similar statements see: Condoleezza Rice. 2007)13 This idea was also present in the Department of Defense: In the near term. the efforts that we're making through public diplomacy and exchange programs to try and pull young people away from the temptation of terrorism. democratic institutions.S. accountable institutions in these countries. 2005)14 From the academic point of view. But this view misses the powerful and growing linkages between our moral interest in the expansion of democracy and our ‘real’ interests in safe. And in supporting those growing number of moderate voices in the Muslim world that are disputing the claim of the terrorists. property rights. have to use military force. civil liberties. Pentagon Town Hall Meeting (Anniversary of Operation Iraq Freedom).

This entailment is necessary to assure that when promoting democracy. October 04. 2005. This relationship is very explicit in the speeches the Bush administration used to define its foreign policy doctrine and to justify the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. 2005)16 In an article published by Foreign Affairs in 2008. it is also a cause of it”.consequence of American primacy. defeating extremist aspirations in Iraq is essential to protecting the lives of the American people. Spring 2001. Interests. MacDill Air Force Base. And it's not only about reopening Iraqi schools. October 11. World Forum on the Future of Democracy (Williamsburg. June 2005. The Future of Iraq – Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. Fukuyama and McFaul (2007) remember us that “Not all autocracies are or have been enemies of the United States. Northwestern University Law Review. volume 102. volume 29. It follows that nothing would serve Americans better than democracy promotion. Indonesian Council on World Affairs (Jakarta. 16 For similar statements see: Donald Rumsfeld. 31. Drezner. and it connects democracy promotion and American national interests: a more democratic world is safer and more prosperous for the United States. 2005. It is not only about building democracy. This kind of vision is equivalent to the third principle of American foreign policy in the post-Cold War. 2008.S. December 5. VA). values and interests”. see: Daniel W. though they are proceeding apace and these things are desirable and ultimately essential to stability in that country. nº 3. 2005. (Donal Rumsfeld. the American government is not leaving behind American interests. “Democracy promotion: serving U. 2006. Parameters. September 17. April 13. Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation Annual Gala. Vol.despite the costs -. Senate Appropriations Committee-Defense. “A Note on Interests. But. but every American enemy has been an autocracy”15. nº 1. VA). “Values. Kenneth Wollack. Indonesia).and they're considerable -. Values and the Use of Force”. And to convince even the most pragmatic. the most important reason for our involvement in Iraq -. September 17. simply put. February 25. 2004. 16 .is often overlooked. Condoleezza Rice expresses well how the administration understood the relationship between values and interests in their post- September 11 foreign policy: 15 About the absence of contradictions between promoting American interests or principles in the literature. Town Hall Meeting. Rumsfeld is a great defender of this principle: Indeed. although democracies tend to be peaceful and prosperous and are in and of themselves good things to be sure. and Jeffrey Record. April 07. Town Hall Meeting. Diplomatic History. Afghanistan. 2008. April 27. 2007. 2007. hospitals or rebuilding infrastructure. and American Grand Strategy”. Kandahar. World Forum on the Future of Democracy (Williamsburg. Council on Foreign Relations.

Bush. As Americans. the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the superiority of democracy as a form of government.because in the long run. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive 17 For similar statements. Thus. It is in our national interest to do so… To state… that we must promote either our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice… An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish. At times. 2001. The idea is that security.. we work and sacrifice for peace. this principle becomes much more important because it allows the Bush administration to tie the September 11 terrorist attacks to the existence of authoritarian countries in the world. It became famous the idea that September 11 had proven that while Americans lived their lives peacefully. stability. resentment. (Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. 2003) This principle also served to explain the choice for preventive war.realism and idealism. and violence ready for export. September 11. it will remain a place of stagnation. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle -. a bloody dictator from an unknown state thousands of miles away plotted against America: “On September 11. there have been short-term tensions between them. (Rethinking the National Interest. 17 . Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. The Middle East in general and Iraq specifically become targets of the American retaliation started in Afghanistan. one of the foundations of the Bush Doctrine. and peace can only be conquered with democracy: Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -. 2006. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends. Bush.000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country” (State of the Union. had no other alternative than to intervene in Iraq to promote democracy: America is a friend to the people of Iraq. 2008) During the evolution of the War on Terror.. 2006). our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. both in principle and in practice… We must insist… to promote democratic development. Address to the Nation on the War on Terror. As in the past. it would be reckless to accept the status quo17. we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7. November 6. of course. we want peace. see: George W. But we have always known where our long-term interests lie.

2008)18 18 For similar statements see: Donald Rumsfeld. 2001. armed forces. February 14. Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense. (Donald Rumsfeld. And as the brave men and women in uniform face these new challenges.. 2004) America will continue to live out its destiny of helping people around the world achieve their own form of freedom. September 02. Council on Foreign Relations/Commercial Club of Chicago. 2002) Rumsfeld. Army Annual Meeting. to the U.. Statement on President Bush's Budget Request for FY 2003. SOCOM Change of Command. 2002. Arlington National Cemetery Funeral Service for the Unidentified Victims of the Attack on the Pentagon. and certainly to the United States Army. Welcoming Ceremony in Honor of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Remarks at the Southern Center for International Studies.. 2004. 2004. associated it to the use of force: Wherever we carry it. America has no empire to extend or utopia to establish.S. 2004) If America does not stand for freedom and for liberty. a peace that favors human liberty. June 1. Colin Powell. October 15. Town Hall Meeting. Powell and Rice also establish this relationship very clearly: Today. September 12. and the hope for a better life. for the rights of the oppressed. the hard work of history falls to our country. Beyond Nation Building. FY 2003 International Affairs Budget. Association of the U. Building this just peace is America's opportunity and America's duty. the American flag will stand not only for our power but for freedom.. 2002) The last of the influences of the Liberal Tradition on the Bush doctrine concerns the strategy to defend the American mission to bring freedom and democracy to mankind. and it is for each generation to safeguard and to defend that freedom. New York. safety from violence. then nobody will. (Address to the Nation on Iraq From Cincinnati. October 1. Bush chose to believe the historic metaphor of America as a “city upon a hill” and. they can know that the great sweep of human history is for freedom. dictator. 2004. We fight. August 23. and if we don’t believe that there is no corner of the earth which should be condemned to tyranny. We wish for others only what we wish for ourselves. 2002... 18 . August 10. (Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy in West Point. due to the identification of new imminent dangers. October 27. International Relations Budget for Fiscal Year 2009. 2003. Atlanta. Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. February 13. and that that is on our side. August 06. 2002. can live as God intended them to live: free (. Ohio. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein. May 07. as we always fight. their own form of democracy so that their people too. April 24. for human rights. the rewards of liberty.S. for a just peace. as before.) (Colin Powell. 2003. February 5. (Condoleezza Rice. Our people have been entrusted with the gift of freedom.

the Bush Doctrine completes itself. 2002) We accept the duties of our generation. was fundamental to the development of the new foreign policy doctrine. Ohio. we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. blink in the face of terror. 2005. with our unique position and power. The mission was repeatedly used by Bush to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Address to the Nation on the Proposed Department of Homeland Security. History has placed a great challenge before us: Will America. and that is the cause of all mankind. By our courage. Homeland Security. February 06. 2001) History has called our Nation into action. Like other generations of Americans. June 22. October 7. and freedom. emphasizing the American responsibility to answer to a call from “Providence” or from “History” and command of the cause of liberty in the world: We did not ask for this mission. we will give strength to others. July 11. we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day. or will we lead to a freer. By our resolve. but we will fulfill it. but we accept it. more civilized world? There's only one answer: This great country will lead the world to safety. We are active and resolute in our own defense. Remarks to the International Reconstruction Conference on Liberia. 2003. September 7. security. Together. (Address to the Nation Announcing Strikes Against Al Qaida Training Camps and Taliban Military Installations in Afghanistan. February 12. We defend not only our precious freedoms but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children free from fear.The idea that promoting democracy was not only right but necessary. 2003) When the liberal tradition connects democracy and the necessity to act through the use of force in the post-September 11 environment. (Address to the Nation on the War on Terror. October 7. (Address to the Nation on Iraq From Cincinnati. 19 . And by our actions. The name of today's military operation is Enduring Freedom. We are serving in freedom's cause. and Condoleezza Rice. the three principles and the mission assessed here were able to elevate democracy to the category of guiding principle of American foreign policy in the Bush years. President's International Affairs Budget for 2004. we will give hope to others. and that even though it was a world battle just Americans had the capacity to lead it. 2002. June 6. 2004. Remarks at the Closing Session of the International Conference on Iraq. 2002) We did not ask for this present challenge. peace.

From a total of 284 motives and justifications identified for such actions in 117 speeches.ucsb. Many speeches link these elements: 19 From President Bush we analyzed all the speeches from the following categories: State of the Union. Figure 1 – Motives and Justifications for the Military Interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) during Bush's First Term* * From the 117 speeches relative to Bush’s first term.gov). From Secretaries of State Powell and Rice we collected the speeches made at the UN. we found 284 justifications. Department of State (www. 20 .S. Data: Content analysis of speeches from President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell.MOTIVES AND JUSTIFICATIONS The quantitative analysis of 236 speeches from Bush and his Secretaries of State19 counted 483 motives and justifications for the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. democracy and security. the motives for the interventions presented by the Secretaries of Defense have not been included in the quantitative analysis yet. which were distributed in the following categories: terrorism. existence of WMD’s. NATO and the U. the preparation for the invasion of Iraq. 43% referred to terrorism.edu/). Addresses to Congress. Santa Barbara (http://www. Source: U. rogue states and WMD’s. Major Addresses to the Nation and the Bush Doctrine main speeches. promotion of regional stability.S. 2001-2004. In the first Bush administration there are the Afghan invasion. Inaugural Addresses. humanitarian assistance. unilateral enforcement of international enactments.presidency. Congress.state. the invasion of Iraq and the occupation of both countries. But these are still partial results. rogue states behavior. They were all taken from the American Presidency Project – University of California.

the prominent motive is democracy (32%). we found 198 justifications.rogue states shelter terrorism. the existence of WMD’s in Iraq had been proved misleading for a little more than one year. democracy as a motive for invasion reached 14%. But this time its link is mostly with democracy as stated relentlessly by Condoleezza Rice: the best antidote to the ideology of hatred is democracy. When Bush inaugurated his second administration. they produce and distribute weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. through the examination of those speeches and also those from Bush’s 21 . Data: Content analysis of speeches from President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. about the same as WMD’s (17%) when considered alone. Others speeches link terrorism with democracy: the war on terror is to be fought by democracy. It follows a qualitative analysis of the motives and justifications of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In 198 motives and justifications for the war on terror identified in 119 speeches of the President and his Secretary of State. terrorism raised its share among the justifications to 23%. 2005- 2008. Interesting enough. In this first Bush administration. Figure 2 – Motives and Justifications for the Military Interventions in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) during Bush's Second Term* * From the 119 speeches relative to Bush’s second term.

These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime. He did so on September 20. a partner in fighting terror. Address to the Nation. Address to the Nation. a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. September 7. State of the Union. October 7. that dictatorships provided safe havens for terrorists and produced weapons of mass destruction.defense. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself. we will prevent Al Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban. and defend itself.W. January 28.20 In broad lines the qualitative analysis of these speeches go in the same direction as the quantitative one.gov). 2008) 20 From Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates we analyzed all the 195 speeches available at the Department of Defense archive made between 2001 and 2008 (www. 2005) The mission in Iraq has been difficult and trying for our nation. The terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed peoples. sustain itself. in Afghanistan. Some excerpts follow: On my orders. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven. and a source of stability in a dangerous part of the world. (President Bush. Address to the Nation. men and women in every culture reject the ideologies of terror and turn to the pursuits of peace. Bush coherently repeated over and over again in his speeches after September 11 that the priority of his administration was to fight terrorism. and beyond would be a grave setback for international terrorism. But it is in the vital interest of the United States that we succeed.Secretaries of Defense Ronald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. 2001 in his first speech to Congress after the terrorist attacks and continued to do it along his two terms in office until the very last year of 2008. June 28. President G. 22 . Everywhere that freedom takes hold. 2003) To complete the mission. (President Bush. (President Bush. terror will retreat. A free Iraq will be a friend of America. 2001) The triumph of democracy and tolerance in Iraq. and that a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq would make the world and the United States safer. A free Iraq will show millions across the Middle East that a future of liberty is possible. (President Bush. When tyrants fall and resentment gives way to hope. the United States military has begun strikes against Al Qaida terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

which prescribes. March 17. however. 2002. The Address to the Nation on Iraq in October 7. February 1. He insisted that Saddam’s regime had violated all of its obligations before the international community since the Gulf War. May 1. The State of the Union speeches from 2002 and 2003 also denounced the danger represented by Iraq to America. this was not the case for Iraq. It followed a period of great American pressure on the United Nations and its Security Council to react against the “despicable and dangerous” acts of Saddam Hussein. “The threat comes from Iraq”. we have an obligation to our citizens. and had continued to threaten the world and the United States (cf. the demand was for a preemptive action. Bush stated in his Address to the Nation on Iraq in October 7. 2002. The Bush administration.N. He would deliver several Addresses to the Nation on Iraq. 2003. We have an obligation to this body to see that our resolutions are complied with. had threatened U. If support for the military operations in Afghanistan were tacitly a consensus in the international community. (…)My colleagues. 2003. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately. We wrote 1441 to give 23 . had defied United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. We wrote 1441 to try to preserve the peace. the building of democracy as the essential tool to win the war on terror. We wrote 1441 not in order to go to war. where he assured that Saddam Hussein not only gave support and shelter to terrorists but also possessed and produced weapons of mass destruction. Along the year of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 Bush dedicated himself to sort of preparing the American people for the next invasion in another dangerous rogue state. Secretary Powell followed closely the UN Resolutions on the matter. and soon after the invasion of Afghanistan the focus of the Bush administration turned to Iraq.Those links between terrorism and dictatorship are a crucial point of the Bush Doctrine. A strategy had to be prepared. as a consequence. showed that it would act any way: Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in UN Resolution 1441. nuclear inspectors. 2003).

there is that 24 . and you well know the history of the last 12 years of continued Iraqi defiance of their obligations under their resolutions. (Colin Powell. and history will certainly be the test of that”. if not peacefully. As seen in the previous section. especially along the preparation of the invasion: But I think we'll know when we have been successful in for the most part dealing with the most serious global network threats and the countries that are harboring those.the real concern at the present time is the nexus between terrorist networks and terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction. And let there be no doubt. Iraq one last chance. (Colin Powell. In this moment the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the fear that they could end in terrorists’ hands were justifications for military actions very much enforced. unilateral action. and when that war ended resolutions were passed that said Iraq should disarm itself of its weapons of mass destruction. And it was time to act. 2004). And he added in the same speech: “There should be no doubt in the mind of the American people or anyone else in the world that we have done the right thing. taking that one last chance. (Colin Powell. based on many acts of noncompliance. and preemptive war were crucial elements of the Bush Doctrine. New York City. 2003) (…) if the United States feels strongly that Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction and trying to develop new ones. Act we did. if necessary. (…. 2003) One can go back many years to the end of the Gulf War. They were used promptly and unambiguously when it came to the invasion of Iraq. Testimony before the House Budget Committee. to the United Nations. the United States reserves the right and believes there is sufficient authority within international law. peacefully or. February 3. that would give us a basis for undertaking whatever might be required to disarm Iraq.) some of the members of the Security Council who signed on at that time didn't understand that the United States of America was deadly serious. February 5. Washington DC. Released by the Office of the Spokesman. (Colin Powell. and finally 1441 was passed by the United Nations where a whole international community came together. 2003) After the Iraq invasion Powell still referred to the American unilateral action: “We took the case to the international community. through the use of force of arms. Iraq is not. so far. reminded the world of all the resolutions this individual had violated -. a total of some 16 resolutions. January 16. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did it the most.Saddam Hussein. many material breaches in the past and continuing material breaches into the present. February 13. He is gone and the people of Iraq are free”. The real -. We were going to disarm Saddam Hussein.

For example. September 19. 2002) There are a handful of terrorist nations in the world that have very close connections with terrorist networks and those nations have weapons of mass destruction and they are developing weapons of mass destruction. we believed. they're testing them and we see them testing them. Libya. unlike terrorist networks. the invasion of Iraq was right: From this office. We found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction. they could give biological weapons to terrorist networks to attack the United States from within and then deny any knowledge. but hundreds of thousands of lives. violated a ceasefire agreement. January 31. and it must force people all across this globe to realize that what we're dealing with here is something that is totally different than existed in previous periods. but we did not find those weapons. (Testimony of U.. Armed Forces.Iran. There are ways Iraq can easily conceal responsibility for a WMD attack. and possessed. April 26. but the reality is that it is happening. September 18. Saddam’s poor records and the dictator refusal to open the country to international inspection.S. Suicide bombers are not deterrable. North Korea. is the argument. 2002) To the extent that they [rogue states] might transfer WMD to terrorist groups they could conceal their responsibility for attacks on our people. There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -. Rumsfeld before the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq. we found mass graves filled by a dictator.S. After the swift fall of Baghdad. that it would necessarily have an obvious return of address. (Secretary Rumsfeld. It is 25 .S. weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of Defense Donald H. there's no reason for confidence that if Iraq launched a WMD attack on the U. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Saddam Hussein has a return address. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions. just to name a few -. That means. 2002) Some have argued that Iraq is unlikely to use weapons of mass destruction against us because. when one thinks of the power and lethality of those weapons. that is to say he's probably deterrable. Chairman. nexus. And they are trading among themselves with those technologies. Powell and Rumsfeld came forward insisting that given the “solid intelligence base” of the information upon which they rested their decisions. Rumsfeld before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq.(Secretary Rumsfeld speaks on “21st Century Transformation” of U. or maybe it is not happening.you like to turn your head and say well that is not really happening. And one doesn't like to see that -. I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. and it poses risks of not thousands of lives. Well.but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Syria. sponsored terrorism. 2002) When it became clear that the WMD’s did not exist. nearly 3 years ago. (Testimony of U.S. Mr. Meeting with Troops. Bush.

removing many of al-Qaida’s top commanders. May 17. Remarks to the Heritage Foundation. Address to the Nation on Iraq and the War on Terror. and anyone who thinks he didn't is just dead wrong. as President Bush said. December 18. Bush.N. and replace hatred with hope. It follows some examples: The President spoke of the significant progress we have made confronting the enemy abroad. Rice. 2004) When Condoleezza Rice became the Secretary of State (January 2005) and Robert Gates became the Secretary of Defense (December 2006) in the second term of the Bush administration. (Secretary Colin Powell. weapons of mass destruction were no longer the American concern in Iraq. a decision was made that that was enough (Secretary Rumsfeld. February 16." (Secretary C. and no intelligence agency past. (Secretary Colin Powell. But in the long term. after 17 or 18 resolutions. The debate up there was how much longer did one think that inspections should be allowed to continue the way we were going. is in support of a foreign policy that is devoted to the spread of liberty and 26 . and putting pressure on states that sponsor or harbor terrorists or seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction. 2005) And what did we know then? And what did we present? We said that this was a regime led by a dictator who had every intention of keeping his weapons of mass destruction programs going. We also knew that he had the capability. February 11. the '07 budget. nor were they impelled to defend the preemptive war strategy. New York. true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction (President George W. 2005) I want to just note that the President's budget. And finally. Gates and especially Rice joined President Bush to reinforce the importance of democracy as the crucial weapon to fight terrorism. present or future will ever demonstrate that Saddam Hussein gave up the intent to have such weapons. 2004) The debate wasn't about whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. wasn't about whether or not the declaration was fraudulent. They were focused on winning the war on terror and this meant not only a definitive victory in the battlefield but also and above all the building of democracy in the rogue states. cutting off terrorist finances. February 6. "The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror. 2004) There was never any doubt in anyone's mind. is the force of human freedom. President’s FY 2006 International Affairs Budget Request. And there is no evidence to suggest that was an incorrect judgment. Testimony before the House International Relations Committee. He had used them in the past and it was clear if given the opportunity he would use them in the future if it served his purpose. The debate in the U.

2007). (…) Therefore you will see in this budget request continuing support for the new democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan. And we believe that the ideology of hatred which they espouse can only be met by advancing liberty and democracy. Rice. one can say that the American foreign policy after September 11. When Bush identifies democracy promotion as the only definite solution to the menace posed by rogue states. (…) Democratic processes must be supported. Bush’s decisions for war in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been noteworthy in themselves. Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. and efforts to address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies and among the discontented from which the terrorists recruit. 2001 27 . 2006). economic programs to spur development. We will continue the discussions about the NATO role in Iraq and Afghanistan.S. What the Pentagon calls “kinetic” operations should be subordinate to measures to promote participation in government. U. Global Leadership Campaign. (Secretary Robert Gates. July 15. since the military interventions were explicitly justified in terms of a new foreign policy doctrine based on the principles of American nationalism and committed to freedom and democracy. But over the long term. This was not the case however. February 16. (Secretary C. and Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates. (…) But of course we know that it is not enough to have a short-term solution to terrorism. March 20. that is. even if they were isolated events. we cannot kill or capture our way to victory. but also to deal with the creation -. Naturally. CONCLUSIONS After the content analysis of the 431 speeches from President Bush. defeating the terrorists who on a daily basis plot and plan to destroy innocent life. democracy as the best antidote to the ideologies of hatred that feed the kind of terrorism that we have experienced and that many others around the world have experienced as well. Remarks with Secretary of NATO before their meeting. which has been so effective and so helpful to helping those young democracies progress. International Affairs Budget Request for FY 2007. he intertwined his foreign and defense policy and show how essential was the role of democracy to his doctrine. In the campaign against terrorist networks and other extremists. terrorism and WMD’s. That is the goal that we have in the support for the young democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan (…) (Secretary C. It will take the patient accumulation of quiet successes over time to discredit and defeat extremist movements and their ideology. Rice.with the circumstances that created those terrorists. 2008) These were the motives presented to legitimate the use of force. we know that direct military force will continue to have a role.

This fact should raise questions about the worthiness of democracy promotion or. ousting Saddam Hussein from power or removing weapons of mass destruction. linking democracy to the specific interests of the United States (3rd principle). about the efficacy of a foreign intervention to impose a regime change without taking into consideration internal variables like the level of economic development or the historical. But the strategy was drawn and Saddam Hussein was identified as the most severe threat to America: a military invasion would be launched – in a radical. at least. These are the justifications that are really important. terrorism and WMD’s. there were other short-run objectives like destroying Al Qaeda’s headquarters. it is important to remember that the craft of democracy is no easy task. changing their ratings from 7.0. to 5. September 11.5 and 6. the latter the only decisive antidote to the former. The effects of the Liberal Tradition appear on Bush’s belief in the efficacy of the use of American power to cause democratic transitions in the international system. They are the ones that prevail in the speeches and they constitute the core of the Bush Doctrine. 28 . And to convince even the more realists. Only a democratic world would be safe and prosperous for America. Iraq and Afghanistan have made very subtle democratic improvements.confirms the presence of the liberal principles announced in this work. Letting aside de human and financial costs of the wars. 2001). It is still altruistic in its belief of action in the name of global peace. still vivid on American minds. No one wished to see a terrorist network with access to WMD’s.0 (the most oppressive) before the interventions. cultural and religious cleavages. Finally. security and stability – motives also present during the eight years of government (2nd principle). respectively (both still considered not free). It assumes an altruistic tone in its conviction that they act to help the oppressed peoples of the world (1st principle). Great emphasis is given to these concerns at first because of the impact of the terrorist attacks. unilateral and preemptive way – to fight terrorism and to build democracy. Only democracy could put an end to the threats of rogue states. That’s why the humanitarian motivation appears in both presidential terms. It is interesting to notice that the democratic justification for the wars is present in the rhetoric of the decision makers since day one (in this case. it also assumes an egoistic tone. according to Freedom House. Surely.

Universal Democracy? A Harry Eckstein Lecture at the University of California. Summer. number 579. and Teixeira. Paper presented at the Third World International Studies Conference (WISC). Santa Monica: RAND. Fukuyama. The Liberal Tradition in America – an interpretation of American political thought since the revolution. What went wrong in Iraq. volume 29. Francis (1989). H. Foreign Affairs. 1996. volume 93. Tom (ed. Current History. Fraser (2005). Security and the American Military Interventions in the Post-Cold War World. p. Fukuyama.58. “The global imperative: Building a democratic world order”. Ano 53. London and New York: Routledge. New York: Harcourt. 439 p.2011. 87. The End of the History and the Last Man.. Farer. 29 . Louis. Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted? The Stanley Foundation. Press.info/2010/02>. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins Un.info/2010/02>. Daniel W. Carl. “Promoting Democracy”. 2004. 2000-2004”. June 2005. Dobbins. Dueck. “Democracy as Policy Goal and Universal Value”. New York: Avon Books. ________ (1992).BIBLIOGRAPHY Cameron. Tom (1996). August 17-20. 16 Summer. O Processo de Democratização da Terceira Onda de Democracia: quanto pesam as variáveis externas? Available at: <http://merediano47. Maria Helena de. Castro Santos. Irvine. Exportação de Democracia na Política Externa Norte- Americana no Pós-Guerra Fria: Doutrinas e o Uso da Força. nº 1. T.. The National Interest. Colin. Winter/Spring 2005. June 2007. Gershman. “Values. _______. Larry (1992). Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. M. Diamond. 2010. 2003. “Ideas and alternatives in American grand strategy. Exporting Democracy as Foreign Policy: Peace. US Foreign Policy after the Cold War: Global Hegemon or Reluctant Sherif? 2nd ed. Farer. nº 3. O papel dos Estados Unidos na nova ordem internacional e as intervenções militares americanas no pós-Guerra Fria: que lugar ocupa aí a democracia? Available at: <http://merediano47. Brace & World. Interests. America’s Role in Nation-Building: from Germany to Iraq. and American Grand Strategy”.). Hartz. 2003. _______. Diplomatic History. April 10. Francis and Michael McFaul. p. 1955. 2004. January 1994. September/October. Foreign Affairs. U. 511-535. Introduction and Overview”. 30. al. _____________ (2010 c). “Collectively Defending Democracy in the Western Hemisphere. _______. James et. _____________ (2010 b). Porto. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations. Beyond Sovereignty: Collectively Defending Democracy in the Americas. vol. Drezner.25-47. Review of International Studies. The End of History. Castro Santos.

3. 18:3 (Fall 2001).S. United States Intervention and Hegemony. After Bush: The case for continuity in American foreign policy. 2008. KY: University of Kentucky Press. p. Packenham. Kenneth. 400. p. The International Dimensions of Democratization: Europe and the Americas. “HOW IT CAME TO WAR”. Political Science Quaterly.Huntington. Kaufman. D. p. “A Note on Interests.S.C. Robinson. Foreign Policy from September 11 to the Iraq War”. Tradição Liberal e Exportação de Democracia na Era Bush. John M.. Political Science Quarterly. “Don’t fence me in: the perils of going it alone”. World Policy Journal. 30 . New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 17th ed. 2-14. 79:1 (January/February 2000). William I. Values and the Use of Force”. Oxford: Oxford Un. 2003. volume 119. Press. Robert A. Hook and John Spanier (2007). Liberal America and the Third World. Vol. “Democracy promotion: serving U.) (1996). Jervis. W. Owen IV. National Interest. Realistically”. Number 3. “Promoting the National Interest”. Washington. __________. Lemann. Record. “Why the Bush Doctrine Cannot Be Sustained”. “American Nationalism and U. Rice. (Liberal Tradition and Exporting of Democracy in the Bush Era) Master’s dissertation presented in 2010 to the Graduate Program in International Relations of the University of Brasilia. The New Yorker. Parameters. Lexington. Wollack. Lynch. Spring 2001. 2005. Promoting Polyarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2003. nº 1.: CQ Press. number 3. Northwestern University Law Review. (1973). July/August 2008. Laurence (ed. In Defense of the Bush Doctrine. March 31. Samuel. American Foreign Policy since World War II. volume 102. Foreign Affairs . Globalization. ____. Whitehead. Nicholas. Condoleezza. and SINGH. 120. ______. Stewart. Volume118. The Third Wave. Norman/London: University of Oklahoma Press. New York: Cambridge University Press. “Rethinking the National Interest – American Realism for a New World”. Timothy J. McCartney. “Understanding the Bush Doctrine”. Teixeira. 2008. 1996. Robert. Ulysses Tavares. Robert G. 31. “Democracy. Robert S. 2007. Political Science Quarterly. New York: Simon & Schuster. values and interests”. Patrick. Jeffrey. 351-377. Fall 2004. Foreign Affairs. 140. The Clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Issue 83. Paul T. Steven. Spring 2006. 1991. 1996.