Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to Outline Doctrine of Striking Foes First
New York Times ^ | 9/19/02 | DAVID E. SANGER

Posted on 09/19/2002 10:54:40 PM PDT by kattracks


WASHINGTON, 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.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 09/19/2002 10:54:40 PM PDT by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"...bolstering foreign aid by 50 per cent..."

Thanks George.

2 posted on 09/19/2002 10:58:25 PM PDT by AzJP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.

I like it!

3 posted on 09/19/2002 11:02:25 PM PDT by seeker41
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.

How would this doctrine affect aid to Eqypt, the US's second largest recipient? Just curious.

4 posted on 09/19/2002 11:05:38 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AzJP
it will be the best spent money in a century.
having watched Hardball tonight,ole Squat to Pee
Matthews has Howard(the duck) Fineman and the
strategy was leaked......Fineman allowed Bush will
get,and damn fast too, his Iraq papers and how
Bush wants them. The theory is now war is off the table
and successful news is wrapped with democratic
"me too's". After days and with the media qued like
a 60's d.j. ,kitchen table issues will bombard Katie
and Matt. Cable tv and Dohawho. The old Clinton
faces will saturate tv again with Bush can't ,
won't etc etc........as said on Hardball...
Squat to Pee added, is it in the dem's heart or is this
hard hearted for votes..It was agreed,votes. But it was
extended between Matthews and Fineman that dems were
aboard for "one vote,one war".No axis of evil
here.
So obviously,had Usamaa's remains been found(in Tora
Bora) these same heartless vote seekers would
have screamed....Usama is dead = war is over.
5 posted on 09/19/2002 11:07:44 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AzJP
When you are Rome you should act like Rome. We are the Roman Empire of the 21st century.
6 posted on 09/19/2002 11:08:44 PM PDT by MedicalMess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
Do you honestly expect anyone to parse the meaning of your post? Is this the new trend in writing style? Let me out of here.
7 posted on 09/19/2002 11:09:38 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
now as to the UN. Expect them to "give it
to Sadaam". The orders will certainly be for
the UN to prove RELEVANCE,after all this is
the alter of the democratic party.Souvergnty(sp)
be damned. Yep...expect Kofi to play to the cameras
and get Dubya's nobel peace prize.
8 posted on 09/19/2002 11:10:15 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
Wow, what the hell did you just wtype....is this code or sumtin?
9 posted on 09/19/2002 11:12:05 PM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zarf
I understood every word
but I'll readily admit,I'm biased.
10 posted on 09/19/2002 11:15:06 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
I thought you were retarded. OK, nevermind.
11 posted on 09/19/2002 11:17:51 PM PDT by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The document makes no reference to the Kyoto accord

Sacre bleu!

12 posted on 09/19/2002 11:19:57 PM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cactusSharp
I really think
you need to ask someone to
HOLD YOUR BEER
So we can understand
you
13 posted on 09/19/2002 11:25:56 PM PDT by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AzJP
I know, I know. But in some ways it is cheap.
14 posted on 09/19/2002 11:36:48 PM PDT by fooman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zarf
this says the same thing
in the Queen's english

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/754017/posts

add a coma here and there and so did I...lol
15 posted on 09/19/2002 11:45:14 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

It's a little late for comfort, but at last a president seeks a foreign policy based on a realistic view of the dangers in the world post-Soviet Union.
16 posted on 09/20/2002 12:07:59 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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."

Ok, got to call a big ole BS on this one. The US has nothing but a history of supporting dictators: aka (only a tiny amount of examples): Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Shah of Iran, Pakistan, almost all the various right wing governments of Central and South America, Batista, Hali Solaci...and many of his ilk in Africa, KLA, Tujdamin, Izobegavich, Kuwait, Shevernadzi and the list goes on and on. The last thing the US foreign policy wants to deal with is an elected official who might just have to represent the wishs of his people and might change regularly...much harder to bribe.

As for China, what is the US going to do, invade? It already spends more then the next 15 nations combined and yet 20,000 US military families are on food stamps and equipment is constantly broken and underfunded....where is the money going? Where are $340 billion dollars disappearing to? Or is it the contractors and the senators and everyone else with a kickback sucking it all up?

17 posted on 09/20/2002 12:21:56 AM PDT by Stavka2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is rockin'. Anyone care to guess what Al Gore would be doing now?
18 posted on 09/20/2002 12:24:09 AM PDT by The Great Satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MedicalMess
If you are Rome, then don't be surprised when the rebellions and the barbarians arrive. Guess no one ever did listen to George Washington and the founding fathers of the US....to bad, never forget what Rome did to its citizens eventually and what became of it.
19 posted on 09/20/2002 12:24:37 AM PDT by Stavka2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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."

I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, since the rest of this document sounds great, but this is a statement that will worry conservatives and rightly so. However Bush seems at least as preoccupied with finally making sure that foreign aid recipients are moving their countries in the direction of freedom.

The rest of this document is "stick", the $$ are a "carrot". If he can use the carrot to prod other countries toward greater liberty we will reap big dividends. We don't spend that much on foreign aid.

20 posted on 09/20/2002 12:32:08 AM PDT by PianoMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson