Allen 1

Like so many empires before us, the United States has reached a very crucial
turning point in its own history. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the international
system transitioned very quickly from rigidly bipolar to extremely unipolar. The United
States gained a stance of hegemony in more spheres than has ever been seen before. The
US became a leader economically, politically, and militarily. The 1990s can easily be
described as a Pax Americana. Meanwhile, what were the intellectual think-tanks
conjuring in this golden era? What policy recommendations can one make when the
world is so peacefully unipolar? Of course, as humanity has done so many times before,
the liberal hawks were in the final phases of conceiving the roots of the Bush Doctrine
an ironic policy of using military might to maintain a democratic peace.
The Bush Doctrine holds three major pillars. Firstly, it is important to maintain
the United States military primacy for the sake of international stability. In other words,
as long as the US is beyond challenge, no confrontation is possible and the peace will
be maintained. Secondly, the US shall preempt any threats that impinge on its national
security. And thirdly, if a multilateral approach is not possible, the US will take a
unilateral one.1 All of these very firm and rigid militaristic strategies are being used with
purpose to spread democracy.
Why would the United States take on such a paradoxical strategy? The answer to
this question lies in the title of Tony Smiths book, Pact with the Devil.2 The Devil in this
case being the academics that convinced the public and the politicians in Washington that
this unipolar moment was different in some way more polarized, more extreme. The
United States is special, our power is more powerful. It is true; the United States
1
2

National Security Strategy of the United States of America. The White House. September 2002.
Tony Smith, Pact with the Devil. Unpublished.

Allen 2
holds primacy in more areas than has ever been seen before. The United States also holds
global reach, which has never been seen before. However, we must take this in the
relative perspective of time. The Roman Empire may not have had global reach but it
existed in a time when the world was divided into isolated regions. In other words, Rome
had extended across the world-as-they-knew it. Does this make the great Roman
Empire more prone to collapse than the United States of America? Is the primacy of the
US that much more powerful? Maybe one should consider that as the size of the world
has grown, it becomes more and more difficult to conquer.
I believe that it is quite amazing that this fatal flaw that has been present in all of
the preceding collapsed empires is also mentioned in the common roots of three religions
at the center of this current World War 4 (as described by Podhoretz)3. In original sin,
Eve (the United States) was convinced to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge and
in turn convinced Adam (the rest of the world) to eat it as well. As a result, Adam and
Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden (the Pax Americana, the Pax Romana and all
of the other foiled peaceful periods that have echoed throughout history). This attitude,
that the world is not enough, the need to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge
when one lives in a fruitful garden, can be seen as the primary flaw in the collapse of
empires.
Another argument by the Devil would be that the United States purpose is just
and different from the preceding failed empires. However, does the spread of freedom
really justify war? Was the Roman Empire not a republic before it expanded into an

Norman Podhoretz, In Praise of the Bush Doctrine. Commentary (September 2002): 19-29.

Allen 3
empire and collapsed? History repeats itself again and again; humanitys fatal flaw is in
its belief that it can dodge the bullet of history.
Freedom is not something that can be imposed upon a people, because that very
imposition undermines the idea of freedom to begin with. Freedom is an ideal that must
come from within a nation, from within a people, from within a person. It is true, and
terribly sad, that suffering and oppression must come along the way, however, that is the
reality of this world. In order to appreciate and celebrate liberation, we must first be
oppressed. This oppression, will inevitably lead to growth and maturity a maturity that
will be very important in the exercise of this newfound freedom. America as we know it
did not spawn from an invasion, but from a revolution. There is no question in my mind
that freedom is an ultimate ideal of human society, and should be sought without rest
however, like most other things in life, the destination means nothing without the
journey. The people who want to enjoy these freedoms must find them themselves it is
a purpose of life.
I find it chilling that our current President invokes the name of God in speeches
that are supposed to instill nationalism in our fight against religious fanatics. Is this not
hypocritical? Is it not ironic that our Presidents State of The Union addressed the
importance of spreading freedom to the rest of the world while limiting the freedom of
scientific research (stem cells) and the freedom of choice? For a President that holds
freedom so dearly for the rest of the world, he seems quite hypocritical with his domestic
policies.
It is not my goal to challenge the President on his policies I merely strive to
question some of its elements. If one were to count the number of question marks present

Allen 4
in this paper, it would be quickly noted that there are much more than average.
However, this was done intentionally I refuse to suggest that I have the answers to these
questions, however I will address the fact that these questions exist. I would be
committing original sin with the rest of the world if I claimed to know the answer to
some of the hardest questions of our day that I know some ultimate truth.
On a more personal level, I initially supported the War in Iraq, and still do to this
day we are facing strange times where, in the Presidents words: Deterrence the
promise of massive retaliation against nations means nothing against shadowy terrorist
networks with no nation or citizen to defend.4 However, I do not agree with the way the
US has approached it. I see many contradictions within the Presidents policies and I
believe it is very important that they are addressed if we are to succeed. The Presidents
goals are bold and original in the course of American History, but not in the course of
World History. If we are to truly use power with purpose and try to escape the bullet of
history, lets make sure that our purpose is consistent and that we do not overestimate our
power. If our measurements of these pillars are accurate, our plan has a much greater
chance at success.

George W. Bush. Speech at West Point. June 1, 2002.