President Bush has an Oval Office, a Western White House and used to have part of a mediocre baseball team. He just got himself a doctrine. Presented to Congress recently in a routine report, the Bush Doctrine outlines his plan for preemptive strikes against threatening nations, preserving American military dominance and promoting democracy and economic health abroad. Much of the content and the language is direct, aggressive and entirely inappropriate in this tense time of diplomacy.

In the document Bush elucidates his unapologetic preference for preemptive action against countries like Iraq, who he says pose a direct threat to the United States. The document also presents the president’s willingness to attack without any international support. But without U.N. consent, a unilateral preemptive invasion of Iraq would shatter the cherished post-war-era value of states’ territorial sovereignty. And other countries, too, would be able to exploit the doctrine of preemptive invasion without consulting anyone. Russia is already exploiting the war on terrorism to bomb Georgian territory in the Caucuses.

Preemptive attack should be a last resort—the exception, not the rule, and used only when other countries cooperate. Rebuilding Iraq will be a massive, long and costly project, and many in the Arab world will see American imperialism, not Iraqi liberation. A U.N. mandate or a broad, international coalition would not only legitimize the undertaking, but make rebuilding Iraq less costly to the United States and calm Arab fears of American encroachment.

But Bush’s plan for unilateral, preemptive action isn’t the only troubling point in his report. He reiterates his desire to pull out of international arms treaties, saying that nonproliferation has failed. Instead, Bush prefers counterproliferation—which means missile defense, dismantling weapons abroad or striking before states like North Korea have a chance to use weapons of mass destruction. While a more active anti-terrorist stance is certainly not a bad thing, ditching landmark arms treaties does little to help, and it could do much damage to the United States as international constraints on arms buildup wither away.

Bush also makes it clear that he will not allow any nation to surpass the United States’ overwhelming military strength. While it is in America’s interest to maintain the dominance of its armed forces, the statement was unnecessarily provocative towards other powerful nations. Bush forgot his own campaign plank—that the United States should be powerful, yet humble. A little less aggression would have been much better than threatening the rest of the world with assurances of America’s lasting military preeminence.

Bush’s new doctrine does little to coax America’s allies to join us. While some parts of the document are encouraging, especially sections proposing to boost foreign aid and promote democracy, it will certainly fan fears of unilateral American intervention abroad. Instead of issuing provocative reports, the president’s top priority should be to garner the world’s support, not to strengthen Bush’s cowboy, go-it-alone image.