| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush to restate terror strategy |
| 2006-03-16 |
| President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq. The long-overdue document, an articulation of U.S. strategic priorities that is required by law, lays out a robust view of America's power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world. On topics including genocide, human trafficking and AIDS, the strategy describes itself as "idealistic about goals and realistic about means." The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States. The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficient to justify preventive war. In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a greater emphasis on working with allies and declares diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of weapons of mass destruction. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush described an Iran with nuclear arms as a "grave threat to the security of the world." Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to preemption. "Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in everybody's face," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error." A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be "foolish," Ullman said, and it would be better to seek other ways to influence its behavior. "I think most states are deterrable." Thomas Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has written on the 2002 strategy, said the 2003 invasion of Iraq in the strict sense is not an example of preemptive war, because it was preceded by 12 years of low-grade conflict and was essentially the completion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Still, he said, recent problems there contain lessons for those who would advocate preemptive war elsewhere. A military strike is not enough, he said; building a sustainable, responsible state in place of a rogue nation is the real challenge. "We have to understand preemption -- it's not going to be simply a preemptive strike," he said. "That's not the end of the exercise but the beginning of the exercise." The White House plans to release the 49-page National Security Strategy today, starting with a speech by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley to the U.S. Institute of Peace. The White House gave advance copies to The Washington Post and three other newspapers. The strategy has no legal force of its own but serves as a guidepost for agencies and officials drawing up policies in a range of military, diplomatic and other arenas. Although a 1986 law requires that the strategy be revised annually, this is the first new version since 2002. "I don't think it's a change in strategy," Hadley said in an interview. "It's an updating of where we are with the strategy, given the time that's passed and the events that have occurred." But the new version of the strategy underscores in a more thematic way Bush's desire to make the spread of democracy the fundamental underpinning of U.S. foreign policy, as he expressed in his second inaugural address last year. The opening words of the strategy, in fact, are lifted from that speech: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The strategy commits the administration to speaking out against human rights abuses, holding high-level meetings at the White House with reformers from repressive nations, using foreign aid to support elections and civil society, and applying sanctions against oppressive governments. It makes special mention of religious intolerance, subjugation of women and human trafficking. At the same time, it acknowledges that "elections alone are not enough" and sometimes lead to undesirable results. "These principles are tested by the victory of Hamas candidates in the recent elections in the Palestinian territories," the strategy says, referring to the radical group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. Without saying what action would be taken against them, the strategy singles out seven nations as prime examples of "despotic systems" -- North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe. Iran and North Korea receive particular attention because of their nuclear programs, and the strategy vows in both cases "to take all necessary measures" to protect the United States against them. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the document says, echoing a statement made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. It recommits to efforts with European allies to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations of nuclear weapons, then adds ominously: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided." The language about confrontation is not repeated with North Korea, which says it already has nuclear bombs, an assertion believed by U.S. intelligence. But Pyongyang is accused of a "bleak record of duplicity and bad-faith negotiations," as well as of counterfeiting U.S. currency, trafficking in drugs and starving its own people. The strategy offers a much more skeptical view of Russia than in 2002, when the glow of Bush's friendship with President Vladimir Putin was still bright. "Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," it says. "We will work to try to persuade the Russian Government to move forward, not backward, along freedom's path." It also warns China that "it must act as a responsible stakeholder that fulfills its obligations" and guarantee political freedom as well as economic freedom. "Our strategy," the document says, "seeks to encourage China to make the right strategic choices for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities." To assuage allies antagonized by Bush's go-it-alone style in his first term, the White House stresses alliance and the use of what it calls "transformational diplomacy" to achieve change. At the same time, it asserts that formal structures such as the United Nations or NATO may at times be less effective than "coalitions of the willing," or groups responding to particular situations, such as the Asian tsunami of 2004. Beyond the military response to terrorism, the document emphasizes the need to fight the war of ideas against Islamic radicals whose anti-American rhetoric has won wide sympathy in parts of the world. The strategy also addresses topics largely left out of the 2002 version, including a section on genocide and a new chapter on global threats such as avian influenza, AIDS, environmental destruction and natural disasters. Critics have accused the administration of not doing enough to stop genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, responding too slowly to the Asian tsunami and disregarding global environmental threats such as climate change. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #35 From Gorby to Putin, RUSSIA reserves its unilateral unconditional national right to use any and means, including military force, to protect the lives of Russian citizens and emigres' abroad, against any country. CHINA also has said the same thing, only more subtledly. Both Russia and China's [SSSHHHHHH, PRE-9-11]precepts strongly imply/infer the use of unilater[MOTHERLY]PREEMPTIVE STRIKE, so why not Clintonian Fascist = Semi-Commie/Half-A-Commie Male Brute Amerikkka!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-03-16 23:34 |
| #34 Hey we attacked somebody today didn't we, they seem to come out when we do something positive in the WOT. :) |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-03-16 23:06 |
| #33 *giggle* But you go on ROF-ing, Glert, each should fit the person. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-16 22:40 |
| #32 ROFLMAO!!! How's that? |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 19:51 |
| #31 Looks like BiStander is nearing critical mass. I still advise using ROFLMAO instead of LMAO, it's way more sincere. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-03-16 19:47 |
| #30 Poor, dear "Bystander" thinks we haven't been clear on his talking points since his first post under whatever name it was that he used in the long ago mists of time when he first discover Rantburg. How sad. How very unperceptive of him... not that it's fair to expect otherwise, poor darling. I mean, political cycles, fergoodnessake! Little children know about taking turns even in pre-school -- but it takes a bit more intelligence or experience to realize that the turns may last minutes.... or generations. And in this country it appears that "generations" is the normal length of that sine curve. Perhaps darling whoever it is today hasn't lived long enough, or is just nearsighted. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-16 19:22 |
| #29 Whatever Bush has for a stratgery, it has got to be better than anything the Dems come up with. The only thing the Dems can think of is voting on a censure resolution on Bush in hopes it will lead to the ultimate prize of Impeachment. This, of course, has the LLL Fever Swamp masturbating uncontrollably until the grasp onto the concept of President Cheney, Frist, Rice, or Gonzales. I want to thank them for once again rallying the Republican base for what will shape up to be one hoot of an ass whooping come this November. After which of course we will hear endless stories of Republicans looking cross-eyed at potential Dem voters causing them to flee the polling place, stories of waiting in line for hours (ever hear of absentee voting?), and those damn Diebold machines operated by KBR contractors! Thank you Russ Finegold! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2006-03-16 18:11 |
| #28 RFSP. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 17:13 |
| #27 Blatch Therst: So you think the republican hold on power is permanent? rotflmao if you were half the political genius you think you are you would know that is nonsense. Any basic novice knows that american politics happens in cycles...and eventually at some point in the near future democrats WILL regain power, just as they did for most of the 20th century. I dont care if what names you call me because deep in that empty rnc brainwashed skull of yours you KNOW I'm correct. you have been checkmated by a moron..who's the loser now? GOOD NIGHT. ROTFLMAO |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 17:11 |
| #26 Your BDS was never in doubt. And, BTW, where I go, you go, fool - the Pubs are in control, little one. You're a born loser and obviously too limited to change. Thus a loser you'll remain, powerless, irrelevant, always flailing away ineffectually, tilting at windmills, spewing your cute little temper tantrums, wasting your life on half-assed lunacy and half-baked conspiracies. A sucker for the idiot industry. When you're old and gray, assuming you aren't run over by a bus while throwing a fit on the centerline mewlin and sputtering in your powerless rage, you will die knowing you've been an utter fool, a tool of those who hate you and everything you cherish. You'll die as you were born - a fool, a loser. No one will notice. No one will care. No one. LMAO! |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 16:56 |
| #25 What? I thought for sure it was some devious Karl Rove/Halliburton plot. Damn. I guess I need new tinfoil. My beanie's not working. Good thing he's posting on my taxpayer dime to keep me aware of all the dastardly, nefarious Republican plots. Maybe we should contact Bethesda to let them know how much we 'preciate his taking all these breaks from work to let us know the truth? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2006-03-16 16:54 |
| #24 Shlemp Thatch: pointless: exactly how I regard your comments about my comments. I have heard this same bs you post so many times from bushwackers that it has become redundant. I could have told you what you were going to say before you even said it. waste a thought on me? You keep responding to what I'm saying because you know I'm correct. I will say this one more time in the most basic terms because there is no need to overintellectualize it as you "geniuses" in here are wont to do. Bush's policies of spreading democracy to the middle east and pre-emptive war strikes to ward off future domestic attacks against the U.S. simply will not work and are doomed to failure. The war on Iraq is a incredible blunder that is a waste of time, money and american military lives and will do absolutely nothing to prevent a future terrorist attack against the domestic U.S.. finally once again: President Bush is a incompetent fake-macho bully, who makes incredibly bad decisions that cause far more problems than they solve. example#1 The Iraqi War. I'm not the first person to say these things and there are millions of us that believe them to be true: we are called democrats. yeah dude, everyone on the left that believes these things is a moron. the real "morons" are the bushwakers like yourself that blindly buy into his bs propaganda and faked out version of reality... go ahead and follow him off that cliff every thing is going just great for bush right dude?...lmao |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 16:40 |
| #23 So, tell us Bystander/Just Curious/Left Angle/Cassini,or whoever you are today. You work at National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, or are you a patient there? That's where your IP sez you're posting from, specificly the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-03-16 16:23 |
| #22 I think the Iraq war was and is a tremendous blunder that will do absolutely nothing to stop future terrorist attacks to the U.S. Duly noted. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-03-16 16:22 |
| #21 By Ford may make junks, but they don't make dogs, silly bystander. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-03-16 16:10 |
| #20 Coming from you, I must say that means absolutely nothing. Who would anyone waste any thought on you? BTW, love your "lmao" affectation. So witty and deep and, well, repetitive - thus pointless. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 16:09 |
| #19 Mr. Glen Thetchet: you are a genius, clearly you are..I've been reading your posting in here and clearly, clearly you are an advanced species. I stand in awe of your brilliant analysis of political issues.. you are an exemplary example of the "intellectual firepower" in this site as Zenster says...rotflmao |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 15:48 |
| #18 Q.E.D. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 15:44 |
| #17 Ms. Trailing Wife: apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I speak in very simple terms so that the things I say are very easy to digest. So let me say these things again to you in the simplest of terms so that maybe, just maybe you will understand where I'm coming from. I am not a supporter of President Bush. I believe that he is a total incompetent who makes bad decisions that cause of more problems than they solve. I think the Iraq war was and is a tremendous blunder that will do absolutely nothing to stop future terrorist attacks to the U.S. I think that his strategies of spreading democracy to the middle east and pre-emptive war simply will not work. I beleive that efforts of the Bush administration to tie Al Qaeda with Hussien and the events of 9-11 are total bs that have been disproven. I think the War with Iraq is a total waste of time, money and american military lives. see how easy that is? Even an airhead such as yourself should be able to get it. |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 15:42 |
| #16 LOL, TW. Too much tinfoil, Icke, Jones, Chomsky, and Kool Aid - I doubt it can become a useful idiot, not to mention a rational or productive citizen. The desire to glow in the dark is strong with this one, LOL. And if they need to block all IP's coming out of BC (isn't that where this particular moron's mossy rock is located?), well, them's the breaks. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 15:36 |
| #15 I look forward to Bystander's thinking (under whatever name it favours at the time to evade Fred's security measures) once it's had time to digest the Saddam papers being released by Negroponte's people. This does presume that it starts to think at that point, of course. Perhpas Bystander should consider a course of Arabic studies, so it can do its own translating, instead of relying on those employed by the government... which would also give it something productive to do for a couple of years. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-03-16 15:30 |
| #14 Glen Thetch: No, sir I see reality just fine. I call em just like I see em. I'm not among the "brainwashed true believers" (Bushwackers) such as yourself. Preemptive strikes work only partially against nations that cant defend themselves. Apparently, the majority of the American people are starting to understand this too. Looked at Bush's poll numbers on Iraq lately? How much you want to bet that President Bush does or doesnt launch an pre-emptive strike against Iran or N. Korea? He wont do it because he knows these nations can defend themselves and wont back down to his threats. In essense he is as most Republicans are: cowards/bullies. lmao |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 15:11 |
| #13 You're really feeling threatened, LOL. Son, your grasp of reality is non-existent. Now putter along to your next therapy session. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 14:44 |
| #12 Glen Thetch: One more thing. President Bush is a cowardly, fake-macho bully. He only picks on nations he KNOWS that cant defend themselves like Iraq. I dare him to do a pre-emptive strike on the likes of Iran or N. Korea. Lets see how his "cowboy" bs works then..lmao |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 14:25 |
| #11 Where are the Iraqi WMD's Bush KNEW they had? Iraq is a f**king mess and you on the right give Bush a free pass on his blunder. The strategy of pre-emptive war is not how the U.S. has dealt with security issues in the past and if Iraq is an example, it damn sure shoudnt be how we deal with it the future. |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 14:17 |
| #10 What is utterly foolish is to pontificate while a clear and present danger emerges. Why, such a clear dereliction of duty would be grounds for impeachment. Everything changes, evolves, demands reassessment, demands those entrusted with the security of the nation fulfill their duty to preserve, protect, and defend the nation. Strategies to accomplish that end must evolve in synch. Pre-emption is an example which has emerged in response to the changing reality and is, apparently, beyond your capacity to fathom. What I can't figure out why you're still allowed on this site. |
| Posted by: Glert Thetch2165 2006-03-16 13:54 |
| #9 Like I said, pre-emptive war works only on countries that cant defend themselves. With the results of U.S. Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq's WMD'S, I would be very hestitant to start a pre-emptive war based on it. It would be utterly foolish to do so. A maybe they do, maybe they dont intelligence report could reap disasterous results, particulary dealing with a nation developing Nuclear capabilities. |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 13:34 |
| #8 Bystander is Just Curious/Left Angle/Cassini, etc. Multiple personality disorder, so sad.. |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-03-16 13:25 |
| #7 Bystander is Just Curious/Left Angle/Cassini, etc. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-03-16 13:17 |
| #6 That is why you hit them BEFORE they get the functional nuclear weapons, along with the tested delivery systems. MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction is a deterrent when you faced essential rational individuals, not when you face psychopaths looking to a reward in an afterlife. That is why you remove their ability to assure your destruction before it comes completely online. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-03-16 13:00 |
| #5 "Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them." -- -- Ralph Waldo Emerson |
| Posted by: bgrebel 2006-03-16 12:21 |
| #4 No problem, You think Bush would do a pre-emptive strike on any country with the means to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons? |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 11:47 |
| #3 hey thanks for the stategery Bystander! LOL! |
| Posted by: RD 2006-03-16 11:27 |
| #2 Pre-emptive war works as long as you pick on a country that doesnt have the means to repel your offensive. |
| Posted by: Bystander 2006-03-16 10:32 |
| #1 "idealistic about goals and realistic about means." Support for Iraq federalism rather than centralism is an example of realism. Could happen if the al-Sadr shakedown is squelched. |
| Posted by: Listen To Dogs 2006-03-16 07:10 |