The 'Bush Doctrine' as a hegemonic discourse strategy
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 3, pg. 377 - 398.
Even if preventive military counter-terrorism may sometimes be
ethically justifiable, it remains an open question whether the Bush
Doctrine presented a discursively coherent account of the relevant
normative conditions. With a view towards answering this question, this
article critically examines efforts to ground the morally personifying
language of the Bush Doctrine in term of hegemonic stability theory.
Particular critical attention is paid to the arguments of leading
proponents of this brand of game theory, including J. Yoo, E. Posner,
A. Sykes, and J. Goldsmith. When examined in their terms, the Bush
Doctine is best understood as an ethically hypocritical and
shortsighted international discursive strategy. Its use of moralistic
language in demonizing 'rogue states' for purely amoral purposes is
normatively incoherent and discursively unsustainable. If it is a
strategically rational piece of international communication, it seems
designed to undermine globally shared normative meanings for the sake
of short-term unilateral military advantage.
Read the abstract.
(Something interesting I found)Posted: Thursday, January 7, 2010