Former President Bush's doctrine—stating that the United States would strike first against terrorists and their supportive states, to preempt rather than to react to attacks—elicited serious concerns that Congress would lose even more of its already declining power over foreign policy and the use of military power abroad. Such preemptive use of military power by the president would almost certainly violate the 1973 War Powers Resolution. How successful has the policy been? Should it be preserved or eliminated?

The policy of  preemptive striking has not been successful and has caused much tensions for the US

It must not be preserved.

Explanation:

The world has been moving away and away from two state conflict and now most of the conflicts in Antioch are internal and not external.

This is the case for the places such as the eons in the middle east that were invaded by Bush quite unnecessarily and then the US  had been stuck in the war for decades and may have caused more harm than good.

It has led for the distrust of international community for the US too.

The people simply do no trust the US for war any more and this has been  concern.

for starters, there is the structural trend of rising primary government expenditure as a share of gdp, which reached 36% in 2014, up from 22% in 1991. this increase reflected a political desire to address the poverty and inequality that had gone unaddressed during previous decades. to support the increase, brazil’s government increased taxes on consumption and promoted progress toward labor-market formalization. nonetheless, public investment, particularly in infrastructure, took a hit. in fact, with the exception of the 2005-2008 period, total investment as a share of gdp has remained below 20% since 1991.

hello,

your answer whould be d