Posted on 06/24/2002 2:16:25 PM PDT by Temple Owl
THE BUSH DOCTRINE
After WWII the U.S. faced unprecedented challenges--the emerging Cold War with the Soviet Union and the rebuilding and democratizing of shattered Europe and Japan. Harry Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson entitled his memoirs of the era, Present at the Creation. Among America's innovative responses was the creation of NATO, which enabled our allies to have a firm sense of security, despite active military and diplomatic threats from the U.S.S.R.
Another era of new thinking is needed now after the attacks of Sept. 11, and President Bush took the first step in a June speech at West Point. He unveiled an emerging doctrine of "preemptive action." If the U.S. sees a state is nurturing a terrorist threat against us, we will strike first rather than wait for the terrorists to attack us. This is a major break in post-WWII policy, in which aggression became a fundamental taboo. In Korea and Vietnam we intervened after the enemy had begun hostilities. We supported guerrillas in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. We waged the Gulf war after Saddam had seized Kuwait.
But as the President said at West Point, "New threats also require new thinking. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."
In a few months the Administration will flesh out this new doctrine more fully. The implications are staggering and the dangers real. Rogue states may take a "use it or lose it" attitude and feel the need to strike quickly before we hit them (though in the future, governments will know what they risk if they go the way of Iraq and North Korea). Attacks may end up spewing poisonous chemicals and gases into the air. We clearly need better intelligence, and we need new weapons that can better destroy hardened and deeply buried weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. We will also need to change our military doctrine, as well as the configuration and deployment of our forces.
We have no choice; preemption is now a necessity. However, we have a difficult task ahead in educating our allies. Given the last century's history, it's understandable that they might initially blanch at the notion of our attacking first rather than responding to an overt, unmistakable act of aggression. But this and other tasks are of no greater magnitude than the sea changes we experienced as a result of WWII: permanent alliances, our numerous bases overseas, our unprecedentedly large peacetime military forces, our spending billions of dollars to help friends and thwart enemies, and the building of new and elaborate institutions to facilitate freer flows of money, goods and services to assure recovery and then to safeguard freedom and nourish greater prosperity.
Once more, we are at the creation.
Ask yourself this: What would Clinton do?
Ask yourself this: What would Clinton do?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Smoke another intern....uhemmmmm I mean cigar?
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.