Katherine Sims

February 24, 2014

JSIS 201
Professor Joel Migdal
George W. Bushs West Point Graduation Speech: Justifying Brash Action Under the Guise of
Patriotism
George W. Bushs graduation speech at West Point, the United States Military Academy,
was given in 2002, on the heels of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. President Bush
spends some time praising the illustrious military academy, and then moves on to speak to the
issues the United States was (and is) facing abroad. While the speech is at times light-hearted,
as a result of its timing, audience, and the shift in policy that it promotes, the speech is more
than just an inspirational send-off, but rather it can be interpreted as a symbol of President
Bushs forthcoming foreign policy objectives. The entire Bush presidency and legacy was in
fact affected by the content of this speech. Bushs seemingly innocuously patriotic rhetoric
seems to invoke American values and memories of international cooperation, yet it is actually
harmfully vague and betrays a unilateral, neoconservative and nationalistic foreign policy that
in reality mishandles foreign threats.
Bush uses broad, generalizing phrasing to describe the dichotomy between the US and
the terrorists, which is misleading due to the truly complex nature of the situation surrounding
terrorism and the US involvement in the Middle East. Words like democracy and freedom
are emphasized for example, the military serves the cause of freedom when in reality the
goals of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda were more nuanced than simply destroying the concepts
of democracy and freedom, and the United States motives were also more complex

(Bush). His argument is blatantly insensitive to the political, cultural, religious, historical, and
economic motives of terrorists and foreign actors, who are written of as completely evil.
Instead of taking a thoughtful, analytical approach, the language used appeals to emotion, by
referencing American war heroes and using broad values statements. While they may appeal to
the ethos of the military, these glittering generalities are simply too imprecise for the important
task they hold. Generalizations and absolute statements are never a good basis for foreign
policy because they refuse to acknowledge the ubiquitous grey areas in these types of
situations. The terms used also treat the United States role as that of a crusader for what Bush
considers to be universal values, an approach so insensitive that it is certain to run into
opposition. Bushs patriotic word choice is a faade for a tone that truly emphasizes American
exceptionalism and a harmful level of nationalism.
During the speech international cooperation is alluded to, yet it is ultimately clear that
the United States under Bush will do whatever it takes to tackle its own interests, with or
without other countries, a concept that is foreboding. References to international cooperation,
such as Bushs statement that the great powers are united, seem to emulate leaders like
Wilson who desired to work multilaterally for a just and peaceful world (Bush). Yet in terms
of the actual actions Bush mentions, he displays signs of Cold War leaders like John F.
Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, also referenced, who led the United States in an ideological
battle. Like the Cold War presidents, but at even a more forceful level, Bush is willing to do
what it takes to obtain American goals. For example, he states that our security will require all
Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when
necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives, meaning that the United States would
now strike first militarily when there seems to be a threat (Bush). The fact that there is no

mention of diplomatic solutions is a troubling statement on Bushs interpretation of American

values. Importantly, the world no longer looks like the Cold War: these unilateral and
aggressive actions are out of place in this modern situation in which it is possible to gain more
intelligence and more clearly understand the threat level. Patience should be valued when
taking huge international actions, yet using language that appeals to emotion, as mentioned
above, Bush encourages fast, potentially reckless, actions. Current international situations have
moved beyond the two-sided nature of the Cold War, and a strategy that ignores that will not
succeed. When Bushs aggressive policy is looked at in conjunction with the vague language
utilized, as discussed above, it is particularly concerning, because using reactionary tactics in
response to unclear belligerents in pursuit of unspecific goals almost certainly always results in
confusion and muddled actions.
While it is true that this graduation speech is on some level just that, a graduation
speech, and not a foreign policy directive or official policy of any kind, speeches hold the
power to symbolize doctrines of international relations, and this speech in particular introduced
the Bush Doctrine. The significance of the audience the future military leaders of the
United States can also not be underestimated, and show how this was truly a speech symbolic
of Bushs view of Americas international role in the War on Terror. Mere months after the
September 11th attacks it was likely not easy for all Americans to see beyond the inspirational
rhetoric, but in the wake of the George W. Bush presidency the negative effects have become
more evident. This speech, the doctrine for which it stands, and the actions it led to, should be
used as a benchmark to which other presidents, such as President Obama, are compared to, in
terms of their military and foreign policy.

Bush, George W. (2002, June). Graduation Speech Presented at the United States Military
Academy, West Point, NY.