Less than a week after the tragic events of "9/11", President Bush revealed his plan for America's new "War on Terrorism" - which has come to be known as "The Bush Doctrine".

The "Bush Doctrine" includes the willingness to form a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address perceived threats to international peace and security in a timely manner, as well as the doctrine of "preemptive war".

Critics of the Bush Doctrine are suspicious of the increasing willingness of the U.S. to use military force unilaterally, without first being provoked or attacked - arguably, a significant departure from past U.S. foreign policy.

Discuss some or all of the following:

- Under what circumstances - if any - is it appropriate for the United States to strike an independent sovereign nation preemptively - without America's first being attacked (think of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and America's official entry into World War II)?

- Under what circumstances - if any - should the United States consider military strikes against a nation that currently has nuclear technology, and/or other weapons of Mass Destruction? You may want to include information about Iran and North Korea in your post.

- Should the United States have the full support of the United Nations Security Council before acting militarily overseas against a sovereign nation?

- Do you believe the Bush Doctrine has been successful in combating terrorism, both at home and abroad? Or, is multi-lateralism and diplomacy (apparent hallmarks and key objectives of the Obama Administration) more desirable foreign policy goals, with the Bush Doctrine simply broadening and deepening anti-American sentiment throughout the world.