Posted on 07/12/2002 5:18:35 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Jul 11, 2002 (Cavalier Daily, U-WIRE via COMTEX) -- Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, the nation has had to reevaluate the efficacy of our intelligence and military systems. Yet, these concerns only are an offshoot of the much bigger problem of the existence of terrorist organizations aimed against the United States and its interests, and the countries which sponsor and house them. President George W. Bush has delineated the elimination of these entities as the goal of his war against terrorism.
To be able to ensure that these goals can be met, Bush proposed a new direction in U.S. foreign policy last month: preemption. In other words, instead of responding to an attack after it happens, our military will disable the threat before it strikes us. This change in policy will give the Bush presidency and the U.S. military the means to accomplish their objectives in the war against terrorism.
U.S. foreign policy for the past fifty years has been one of containment. Developed at the beginning of the Cold War, this strategy advocated confronting hostile communist advancement at every level and stage with equal or superior force, in order to "contain" the spread of communism. The Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as the arms and space races can be directly attributed to this philosophy. However, communism in its most feared expansionist form, embodied by the powerful Soviet Union, has been extinct for over a decade. Yet, the foreign policy for dealing with this former opponent has been the primary guide to U.S. security since that time.
Our new terrorist enemies are vastly different from our old Soviet ones. Clearly, the United States needs a new policy in order to effectively confront our newest and more elusive foes.
The solution, as suggested by Bush, is to have a more proactive security policy. In his words, "the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge." This means the United States will advocate engaging in preemptive strikes of targets it knows or suspects through intelligence are of a harmful nature to America.
Bush appears to be on the right track. As the Sept. 11 attack and subsequent terror attempts have shown, terrorism is a very real threat to our country and our way of life. To combat terror, we need tactics that will fight off these new threats adequately. The first phase of the war against terrorism in Afghanistan has demonstrated that unconventional tactics are necessary. Terrorists' headquarters and supply depots are in homes and caves, and the "soldiers" blend into the regular population. Instead of utilizing wide sweeping conventional military action that our armed forces are prepared for and used to, we need greater reliance on small, precise strikes to bring down terrorist cells. Bush's new foreign policy will be vital in enabling the United States to legally involve itself in such missions while staying within the laws which define the scope and justification of our military engagements.
Unfortunately, this foreign policy also lends itself to a great deal of diplomatic strain. Although our intelligence may have clear knowledge of a particular threat, if we attack a target on foreign soil unannounced, or even with warning, we risk angering the country that housed the target and other nations that may disapprove of such military action. Generally, this is not a situation any country would like to find itself in. This limits the latitude with which other countries, some of which could be our allies in the war against terrorism, may want to cooperate with us.
Yet, preemptive military action appears to be the only solution to effectively combat the terrorist threat. The longer we wait before foiling a terrorist's plot, the more we risk it actually occurring. That is unacceptable, because one terrorist attack that gets through our security lines is one attack too many.
In recent history, preemptive military strikes have been particularly successful. The only country that has had to rely on such tactics has been Israel, which in 1967, attacked Egyptian military forces that were amassing along the border in an apparent invasion attempt; and the 1981 destruction of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility that was suspected of constructing nuclear weapons. Both attacks were heavily criticized when they occurred, but in retrospect have been hailed as successes. Egypt did indeed invade, but with a heavily damaged army, and Iraq's true intentions of developing weapons of mass destruction for possibly hostile use against the United States and Israel have been revealed in the past decade.
Even though it threatens to be a controversial and disliked policy in the international arena, preemption is the only way to safeguard our nation's security, and it must be utilized to help us win the war against terror.
By Alex Rosemblat
http://www.cavalierdaily.com
preemptive military action appears to be the only solution to effectively combat the terrorist threat. The longer we wait before foiling a terrorist's plot, the more we risk it actually occurring. That is unacceptable, because one terrorist attack that gets through our security lines is one attack too many.
In recent history, preemptive military strikes have been particularly successful. The only country that has had to rely on such tactics has been Israel, which in 1967, attacked Egyptian military forces that were amassing along the border in an apparent invasion attempt; and the 1981 destruction of the Iraqi Osirak nuclear facility that was suspected of constructing nuclear weapons. Both attacks were heavily criticized when they occurred, but in retrospect have been hailed as successes. Egypt did indeed invade, but with a heavily damaged army, and Iraq's true intentions of developing weapons of mass destruction for possibly hostile use against the United States and Israel have been revealed in the past decade.
Even though it threatens to be a controversial and disliked policy in the international arena, preemption is the only way to safeguard our nation's security, and it must be utilized to help us win the war against terror.
What's that crying and screaming we hear coming out of NY City and the Beltway?.
Oh that's the left wing maggots who hate America screaming. They would rather that innocent Americans be slaughtered instead of killing those who would kill us before they hae the opportunity!
Thanks for finding and posting the article John!
Bush Doctrine Unfolds :
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
I built a ping list from some of my other lists.
If anyone would prefer not to be pinged on this topic area send me a note!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.