Using the Bush Doctrine as a Teaching Tool

Kurt Mills
James Madison University

This is a preprint of an Article accepted for publication in International Studies Perspectives
© 2003 International Studies Association

We face many tasks as teachers of international studies. As with all teaching, this includes getting students to think critically and be able to analyze change. In addition, we must help our students develop the skills necessary to be a member of the citizenry (both nationally and globally). The promulgation last fall of President Bush’s “National Security Strategy of the United States,” or Bush Doctrine, provides an opportunity to pursue such challenges. It represents the most fundamental restatement of US national security policy since NSC-68 and a significant change in direction and tone (although how much of a shift is currently up for debate). It is also a key public document that citizens need to understand in order to make important decisions in their public lives as citizens.

In this essay, I will reflect on my experience using the Bush Doctrine in my teaching activities in the weeks after it appeared. I used it in three different contexts, all with somewhat different goals. The first was in an introduction to international relations class, with the goal of giving students a basic understanding of the different ways national security could be defined and the different strategies that might be pursued. It also fit within broader course goals having to do with examining different theoretical frameworks for understanding international relations (realism, neoliberalism, etc.). The second was in a US foreign policy class, with the goal of digging more deeply into how US national security and national interests are conceptualized and concretized. Finally, I used the Bush Doctrine in a public panel discussion as a lens through which to understand the impending war with Iraq.

In all three settings, I conceived of using the Bush Doctrine as an instance of textual and contextual analysis. The goal was to get the students to see it, and similar documents, as something to be interpreted rather than just absorbed. This is obviously a challenge we all face. Some important questions that students were asked to consider were: Is the document internally consistent? That is, do the statements, assertions, analyses, etc. in the document all go together, or are they contradictory? If the latter, what does this mean about the document itself and those writing it? If the document is intended to be a clear and coherent statement of US policy, what does it mean that not all policy recommendations can be simultaneously implemented? Students can thus see policymaking in broader political contexts and better understand that making policy is a messy process with many inputs.

Further, students were asked to put the document in larger contexts and historical frameworks. Again, is it compatible with statements and actions by the authors of the document? Given the backgrounds of the key national security players in the Administration, and actions already taken, how are we to interpret the document? Does it really call for absolute US military supremacy as some have suggested? Many students were uncomfortable with this suggestion, although probably a good number also thought that the US is, and should be, in this position. A number of the more conservative, hawkish students did not like the suggestion that the US was out to dominate the world, even though they argued the US should do exactly this in classroom discussions. What does this suggest? One thing it indicates is that students are unsure about many of their ideas and are uncomfortable being challenged about them. This is obviously not an original observation—students all over the world are in this position. It does suggest, however, that a document like the Bush Doctrine is an excellent way to get the students engaged in a bit of critical thinking about their own ideas and assumptions.

I also used the Bush Doctrine as the basis for a public lecture on Iraq. The reaction after the lecture was quite telling. Since it was a public lecture rather than a classroom lecture, I was able to be more opinionated in my analysis. Several of my students came up to me afterwards and said they wished I had given this lecture in class because it brought everything together and made things clear. On the one hand this is, of course, gratifying. On the other, however, it was also a little disturbing since it indicated that the students were looking for the professor to give them the answer rather than trying to develop answers on their own. Not a new phenomenon, but one which demonstrates the continued necessity of pushing students to develop their ideas. As I tell my students, once they are in the voting booth, I won’t be there to tell them where they stand on the issues. And the Bush Doctrine is such a significant statement of US policy that it is encumbent upon us as teachers to make sure our students have the skills to think about it for themselves, beyond what the TV pundits (or faculty pundits for that matter) have to say about it.