Bush to Outline Doctrine of Striking Foes First

New York Times ^ | 9/19/02 | DAVID E. SANGER

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — On Friday, the Bush administration will publish its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document will also state, for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war.

In the 33-page document, Mr. Bush also seeks to answer the critics of growing American muscle-flexing by insisting that the United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage "free and open societies," rather than seek "unilateral advantage." It calls this union of values and national interests "a distinctly American internationalism." [Excerpts, Page A14.]

The document, titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States," is one that every president is required to submit to Congress. It is the first comprehensive explanation of the administration's foreign policy, from defense strategy to global warming. A copy of the final draft was obtained by The New York Times.

It sketches out a far more muscular and sometimes aggressive approach to national security than any since the Reagan era. It includes the discounting of most nonproliferation treaties in favor of a doctrine of "counterproliferation," a reference to everything from missile defense to forcibly dismantling weapons or their components. It declares that the strategies of containment and deterrence — staples of American policy since the 1940's — are all but dead. There is no way in this changed world, the document states, to deter those who "hate the United States and everything for which it stands."

"America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones," the document states, sounding what amounts to a death knell for many of the key strategies of the cold war.

One of the most striking elements of the new strategy document is its insistence "that the president has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago."

"Our forces will be strong enough," Mr. Bush's document states, "to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." With Russia so financially hobbled that it can no longer come close to matching American military spending, the doctrine seemed aimed at rising powers like China, which is expanding its conventional and nuclear forces.

Administration officials who worked on the strategy for months say it amounts to both a maturation and an explanation of Mr. Bush's vision for the exercise of America power after 20 months in office, integrating the military, economic and moral levers he holds.

Much of the document focuses on how public diplomacy, the use of foreign aid, and changes in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank can be used to win what it describes as a battle of competing values and ideas — including "a battle for the future of the Muslim world."

The president put the final touches on the new strategy last weekend at Camp David after working on it for months with his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and with other members of the national security team. In its military hawkishness, its expressions of concern that Russian reforms could be undermined by the country's elite, and its focus on bolstering foreign aid — especially for literacy training and AIDS — it particularly bears the stamp of Ms. Rice's thinking.

A senior White House official said Mr. Bush had edited the document heavily "because he thought there were sections where we sounded overbearing or arrogant." But at the same time, the official said, it is important to foreclose the option that other nations could aspire to challenge the United States militarily, because "once you cut off the challenge of military competition, you open up the possibility of cooperation in a number of other areas."

Still, the administration's critics at home and abroad will almost certainly find ammunition in the document for their argument that Mr. Bush is only interested in a multilateral approach as long as it does not frustrate his will. At several points, the document states clearly that when important American interests are at stake there will be no compromise.

The document argues that while the United States will seek allies in the battle against terrorism, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." That includes "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities" not to aid terrorists, the essence of the doctrine Mr. Bush declared on the night of Sept. 11, 2001.

The White House delayed releasing the document this week so that its lengthy discussion of conditions under which the United States might take unilateral, pre-emptive action would not dominate delicate negotiations in the United Nations or the testimony of administration officials who appeared at Congressional hearings to discuss Iraq.

The new strategy departs significantly from the last one published by President Clinton, at the end of 1999.

Mr. Clinton's strategy dealt at length with tactics to prevent the kind of financial meltdowns that threatened economies in Asia and Russia. The Bush strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax rates. While Mr. Clinton's strategy relied heavily on enforcing or amending a series of international treaties, from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to Kyoto protocols on the environment, Mr. Bush's strategy dismisses most of those efforts.

In fact, the new document — which Mr. Bush told his staff had to be written in plain English because "the boys in Lubbock ought to be able to read it" — celebrates his decision last year to abandon the ABM treaty because it impeded American efforts to build a missile defense system. It recites the dangers of nonproliferation agreements that have failed to prevent Iran, North Korea, Iraq and other countries from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and says that the United States will never subject its citizens to the newly created International Criminal Court, "whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans."

The document makes no reference to the Kyoto accord, but sets an "overall objective" of cutting American greenhouse gas emissions "per unit of economic activity by 18 percent over the next 10 years." The administration says that is a reasonable goal given its view of the current state of environmental science. Its critics, however, point out that the objective is voluntary, and allows enormous room for American emissions to increase as the American economy expands.

The doctrine also describes at great length the administration's commitment to bolstering American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom." It insists that the programs must have "measurable results" to assure that the money is actually going to the poor, especially for schools, health care and clean water.

[Stavka2]

Don't forget that Bush gave the Taliban $40 million in aid for lowering Opium production, right after taking office.

[Stavka2]

The Bush strategy urges other nations to adopt Mr. Bush's own economic philosophy, starting with low marginal tax rates.

Oh, like the 13% flat tax rate that is yet to even be looked at seriously in America?

[Right_in_Virginia]

"The new strategy departs significantly from the last one published by President Clinton, at the end of 1999."

Good news.

[lwoodham]

Damned bold, this president, and I like it. I like it a lot.

[Savage Beast]

"United States will exploit its military and economic power to encourage 'free and open societies'"

What about the Islamic theocracies?

[gPal]

the thought of our being policemen to the world is both exciting and at the same time scary...the scary part first...just one example...china leaves no doubt(even our cia can see that they are going to take taiwan within weeks or months...a sure thing...what do we do?...according to this piece we pre-emptively attack...we do and I believe we are at war immediately with china...probably n. korea as well as india or pakistan...and most likely other countries that i'm not smart enough to list...what is the minimum downside...china and maybe no. korea...launch nukes on 36k troops in so. korea...california to alaska at least...maximum downside...same scenario as above but russia decides to throw their nukes at us while we are trying to deal with china et. al...resulting in ww3, MILLIONS of USamericans DEAD and armageddon...please take the minimum downside china scenario and show me how wrong and dumb i am...this is pretty serious and scary stuff...my mind finds it incomprehensible...

[MrConfettiMan]

Ping for your perusal.

[MrConfettiMan]

china leaves no doubt(even our cia can see that they are going to take taiwan within weeks or months...a sure thing...

Care to back up your assertion with some facts? One would think if China had any serious interest in invading Taiwan they would have done so when Slick Willie was in the White House. After all, there's no better guarantee of getting the United States to look the other way than having the president on your payroll.

[Savage Beast]

Our best security, and the best security for liberty, justice, and the entire world, is our formidable power, especially military power. Hostile nations would not dare release World War III. Even the mad bolsheviks of the Soviet Union understood this and ultimately behaved sensibly. If the U.S. were weak and vulnerable, hostile nations and sundry madmen would tear us to shreds. As long as we are strong and resolute, the world is safe.

This is one reason why "Liberalism" is so dangerous. It weakens the U.S. and the U.S. resolve and tempts America's enemies to action that they would otherwise never dare to take. September 11 was one example.

[Savage Beast]

There is a very important caveat:

The best of government is a necessary evil that inforces its authority by violence.

The federal government and the state governments are not the United States; they are its servants and the servants of the American people. They are very dangerous, and they must be held in check and their power limited.

This formidable power can be turned against U.S. citizens and used against them just as it can be used against foreign enemies. It can be used for evil purposes just as it can be used to protect liberty, justice, and the rights of people.

The power, scope, and influence of the federal AND THE STATE governments must not be increased!

This is a second reason why "Liberalism" is dangerous. It serves to INCREASE the power, scope, and reach of government!!!

[gPal]

you are definitely right about our need to be militarily formidable, as well as strong and resolute while keeping liberals under control...the chances of a nuclear attack are probably low right now but what if circumstance change...example: china decides we are vulnerable because of being stretched so damn thin with a war in iraq as well as afghanistan and decide to take taiwan...the enormous difference in nukes might not deter them and even though we have 1000s of deliverable nukes to their 10s at most, they proved in the 60s that losing millions is no big deal...why would losing millions again stop them from killing millions of USamericans to take taiwan but, considering our reaction to losing "just" thousands in wtc attack are we willing to lose millions now?...in this way our strength and formidability just won't be enough...

[Miss Marple]

The entire report is on the White House web site, in pdf format, so that the boys from Lubbock and all the rest of us should be able to read it! LOL!

I actually would like to get a hard copy for myself. It is quite good.

[1Old Pro]

rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction.

Odd, here I am thinking that we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and we were responding to that attack.

[gPal]

my remarks are only a hypothetical scenario...i don't know if china is going to move on taiwan...but "what if they did", under normal circumstances, as savage beast pointed out, as long as we are percieved as being much stronger than china or russia et al, there is little chance of our being attacked...what worries me is that if we move on iraq, which must be done,...we may be vulnerable... just one possibility... china decides while we are fighting two wars to move on taiwan...we could easily be attacked if we get involved militarily...lots of ifs and just a scenario

[rdb3]

Odd, here I am thinking that we were attacked on September 11, 2001 and we were responding to that attack.

What's odd about it? We are responding to the 9/11 attacks. But what's wrong with being able to smoke rogue terrorist states first?

[1Old Pro]

. But what's wrong with being able to smoke rogue terrorist states first?

I already heard Bush say we would go after all terrorist states and anyone who harbored or helped terrorists. We don't need any new stinkin proclaimations. We need to go and smoke'm.

[rdb3]

We don't need any new stinkin proclaimations. We need to go and smoke'm.

Can't argue with you there!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps the crucification of Christians will begin soon?

[ladtx]

The doctrine also describes at great length the administration's commitment to bolstering American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom."

Then at the same time we should--

"Describe at great length the administration's commitment to cutting American foreign aid by 50 percent in the next few years in "countries whose governments do not rule justly, invest in their people and encourage economic freedom."

[Stavka2]

Why? The US military is barely able to do one major war at a time, so wait until Iraq and take Taiwan, that simple. This, dispite having a budget larger then the next 15 nations combined. Ever wonder where $340 billion of your dollars are going, surely not to feed those US military families sitting on welfare. How many fat cat companies are sucking down your money on failed or over budget over dead line projects like F22 or the Crusader, when other nations are already developing such technologies for cheaper.