Posted on 09/24/2002 2:41:00 PM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
President George W Bush's newly released document, The National Security Strategy for the United States of America, issued on September 20, declared in no uncertain terms that the doctrine of deterrence - the bedrock of superpower relations during the Cold War years - is history.
Instead, the dual doctrines of "preemption" and "proactive counterproliferation" will guide America's national security policy (rogue states, your time is up). The North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be expanded to the hilt (Russia beware), and the People's Republic of China will be negotiated with on adjustments in its policy of political pluralism, human rights and, more to the point, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (China, be careful).
The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a very important document since it spells out the overall strategy of the United States vis-a-vis different regions of the world, enumerates a number of global security issues of primary concern to Washington, and elaborates its policies regarding those issues. Another significance of the NSS is that the Pentagon uses it to develop the National Military Strategy, which, in turn, becomes the basis for developing secret war plans. The US Congress has required every president to produce the NSS every year since the passage of the landmark Goldwater Nichols Act of 1986. Even though it has not been developed every year since then, whenever it has been issued, it has probably been one of the most significant documents spelling out national security policies of a sitting president.
All formal declarations of policies reflect the dynamics of the domestic and international environments to which they intend to respond. In this sense, the current NSS is no exception. Given that the Bush administration's global war on terrorism is continuing, albeit with mixed success, in Afghanistan, terrorism is the second most significant goal listed, and was preceded only by the goal of championing human dignity. At the same time, since unilateralism has been the preferred modus operandi of Bush for his past 20 months in office, it is the fourth significant listed objective, and is preceded by the objective of working "with others to defuse regional conflicts".
Perhaps the most significant and equally controversial objective of the NSS is the one of preventing "our enemies from threatening us". In the section that elaborates on this objective, the Bush administration abandons "deterrence", which was the bedrock of America's national security policy during and even after the end of the Cold War. The rationale for that abandonment - which may charitably be labeled as muddled - is the contentious argument that the so-called rogue states would not be deterred now as the Soviet Union was during the Cold War years. The NSS states that the rogue states are sponsoring "terrorism around the world". Such a depiction, which even the US intelligence agencies do not support, has already been used to make the argument for toppling Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
Deterrence is replaced by the doctrine of preemption, whose operationalization in the immediate future is the doctrine of proactive counterproliferation. It is interesting to note that the Bush administration uses a circular argument regarding preemption. It correctly notes that it is not a new option to counter threats to America's national security. It goes on to observe that that the United States "will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression". But in the very next sentence it adds, "Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather." In other words, Washington reserves the right to aggressively preempt what it determines as threats to its national security.
The written critiques of the NSS seem to have glossed over the significance and threatening nature of the confluence between preemption and counterproliferation. The near-term application of these doctrines will be "regime change", as the United States is gearing up to effect in Iraq. But in the not-so-distant future, those doctrines are also likely to be applied to Iran and North Korea, for both countries have very active nuclear programs and highly developed missile programs. These two countries, along with Iraq, were mentioned in the Rumsfeld Report of 1998, which has been regarded from the very early days of the Bush administration as the most prescient clarion call regarding emerging threats against the security of the United States, and which served as the chief basis for Bush to insist on the necessity for building the national missile defense (NMD) systems even before he entered the White House. It will also be recalled that the US decision to build the NMD systems was the chief reason why the US also unilaterally abandoned the Antiballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, which served as the chief foundation for nuclear arms reduction between the United States and former Soviet Union.
Regarding Russia, the imprints of Condoleezza Rice - Russia specialist, National Security Council Advisor and chief architect of the NSS - are quite apparent. While the NSS emphasizes common interests with Russia on fighting global terrorism and strategic arms reduction, it also notes "differences that still divide us". There is little doubt that Russia-Iran nuclear cooperation is very much on the mind of Bush officials when the NSS characterizes Russia's record in combatting the weapons of mass destruction as "dubious".
In describing relations with mainland China, the Bush administration notably omits the phrase "strategic relationship", which the NSS document uses in describing US-Russia and US-India ties. Instead, it states that the US-China relationship "is an important part of our strategy to promote a stable, peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific region". The language of the NSS is comparatively more critical of China than Russia by stating, "In pursuing advanced military capabilities that can threaten its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region, China is following an outdated path that, in the end, will hamper its own pursuit of national greatness." That document also identifies America's commitment to self-defense of Taiwan, human rights and nonproliferation as "areas of profound disagreements" between Washington and Beijing.
The NSS, in the final analysis, is a codification of all the policies that the Bush administration has been pursuing for the past 20 months. Its chief strength is that, in the explication of its worldview, its aspirations, and in expressing its repudiation of a number of global security issues, it is far clearer than the NSS issued during the presidency of Bill Clinton. For America's friends and potential adversaries, as well as its foes, the dual doctrines of preemption and proactive counterproliferation will serve as sources of moral or even legal dilemma and consternation, respectively. But to think that those doctrines will ultimately deter even the so-called rogue states into forswearing attempts to acquire their own weapons of mass destruction is an exercise in masterful naivete.
Survival (or in the case of the rogue states, regime survival) is the most basic instinct and the chief motivating factor for all nation-states. International relations theorists regard those instincts as part and parcel of their "vital interests". By denying the right to prolong their survival through the dual doctrines of preemption and proactive counterproliferation, the Bush administration has only dared the rogue states to intensify their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Hence, perhaps quite unwittingly, those doctrines promise to make the world a more dangerous place now than it was during the Cold War years. At least then, both superpowers were constraining each other's exuberant impulses to dominate.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is a Norfolk, Virginia, US-based strategic analyst.
It is an ignorant mistake to think we have embraced pre-emption/first strike as our policy for all cases and in all times. Instead it should be considered one of many approaches to serious national threats.
If we're going to put out so much in foreign aid we might as well start exercising our power.
It's about time.
I'm listening... To what level are we disarming? Is there a modern replacement for the MX that is replacing it?
"Preemption" is probably a warning for North Korea, which would not require many nukes if push came to shove. But how many is "enough", I'm not qualified to say.
Obviously, the most likely threats are going to be Al Qaeda like "Dr Evil"s. Getting them would generally require Special Forces, and the will to use them.
And, finally, China. If we fail to win them over, if they decide to expand by force, and if we find the spine to confront them, we will probably need nuclear arms to do the job. Again, how many?
Yes, but the earlier deterrence was of the form "You blow us up, we'll blow you up." We didn't act to prevent Russia from being able to blow up the U.S.; we just made it very clear that it was decidedly not in their interest to do so.
What the U.S. is doing here is very much a change of stance, necessitated by the fact that we are dealing with an adversary that does not seem to mind the consequences of either initiating a nuclear attack on the U.S. or assisting a terrorist in doing so.
This is a scary change, but one which may well be necessary. It's similar to the police's recognition that an adversary need not fire the first shot to be considered a lethal threat. Unfortunately, many of the same risks as apply there apply here, only on a much larger scale.
| 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) | ||||
How so?
Whether you agreed with him or not, Ahrari was making a cogent argument until this clinker. It sounds to me that the doctrine of preemption actually serves as a deterrent in this regard.
It certainly has more deterrent value than doing nothing...
Why should we be deturd?
All of the Peacekeepers are being dismantled. ALL. The Minuteman IIIs have since been 'upgraded' during the last year of Clinton's administration so that they suddenly lost accuracy AND range...significantly enough that they are no longer considered able to take out the seriously hardened targets...even when used in 'salvo' formations (three at once). We eliminated all of the reliably-deliverable (missile or gun-delivered) tactical battlefield nuclear weapons under Bush the First... We eliminated all the Poseidon missile submarines, and started retiring Tridents. We will have to de-Mirv what few subs are left to go below GWB's 1700 RV ceiling. Meanwhile, they have de-alerted our ground-based forces, and bomber wings. They are supposed to 'ride out' a nuclear attack. They won't even survive a nuclear attack if launched by Russia's SS-18s or China's copy of the Topol-M (code named DF-41, 'East Wind')...nothing left to ride-out. That leaves only the subs. And GWB has been talking about de-alerting the subs. Leaving them in port where they are sitting ducks for a sneak attack. And any that did survive a sneak attack would not have many warheads left after de-Mirving to do any good. These few SLBM warheads would then have to get trhough Russia's missile defense screen which is 360-degrees in azimuth protection...and effective with nuclear-armed interceptors. Not just the 200 or so Galoshes, but a good fraction of the 10,000 or so S-300s and S-400s. We are looking at a gaping Window of Vulnerability inviting a nuclear Pearl Harbor. And it is all avoidable... And the Russian's refusal to de-Mirv the SS-18 is the proof of their intentions.
So that is the level of our disarmament from the deterrence standpoint. From the counterforce standpoint, we will still retain D-5 SLBMs, but note, with very few warheads, and no other serious counterforce-capable systems (during Bush I & II and Clinton we have expended almost the entire Reagan-era stash of Tomahawk cruise missiles, and are still foolishly converting what few are left to simple conventional warheads ). Replacements are not happening. Clinton made sure of that. He again shortened the range, and delayed any actual production monies. Bush has not cured this.
So what are we now? Hollow Military is not the word for it. Paper Tiger comes to mind. The Chinese Communists openly...and gleefully post-911 brag that we are just that. How long before they put us to the test?
The Communists may align with or against the Muslims. IOW, these three power thugs are engaged in shifting alliances for world domination. Looking to be like Oceana, Eurasia, and Eastasia, and perpetual war.
Seems like Bush is doing a reprise of Clinton's 'bomb the world, I want to get off'. Only Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' makes it sound like an appealing idea while to Clinton bombing was just a 'blow for freedom'.
I wonder if we have given the green light for every nation to follow our lead, maybe even against us. "Hey, hey, look, look, he was going to hit me first, yeah, yeah". Speak loudly and carry a big schtick is in.
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.