Military

DATE=10//02

TYPE=FOCUS

NUMBER=8-014

TITLE=BUSH PREEMPTIVE STANCE

BYLINE=MARY MOTTA

DATELINE=WASHINGTON

EDITOR=ED WARNER

CONTENT=

INTRO: Recent events are testing President Bush's new national security strategy continuing terrorist attacks in various parts of the world and the disclosure of North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program. All the more reason to implement the forceful Bush Doctrine, says its proponents. It clearly delineates the duties of the one global superpower. Others contend its policy of preemption is dangerously vague. VOA's Mary Motta examines the issue.

TEXT: Analysts say President Bush's "National Security Strategy" released last month, may be one of the most important geo-political documents published in half a century. The paper takes an unprecedented step away from Cold War views to confront a world beset by the likes of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida terrorists.

In addition to addressing the prevention of potential regional conflicts and defense strategies, the document lays out America's role in preempting any hostile actions before they take place.

While the most likely target of a U.S. preemptive strike is Iraq, the document states a much broader agenda to include any countries harboring tyrants and terrorists who pose a threat to the United States.

But the Bush doctrine falls sort of clearly defining who these terrorists are. Some analysts believe this vague definition of America's enemies may be setting a dangerous precedent.

Lee Hamilton is a former U.S. congressman from Indiana and director of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars.

He says preemption is not a new policy. The past U.S. policy has always condoned preemptive strikes when faced with an imminent threat. What concerns him is that the new standard insists on anticipatory action to defend the United States against new threats -- even if there is uncertainty as to the enemy's intentions, timetables or target of aggression.

///HAMILTON ACT///

What are the guidelines for preemption? The United States has not set out, does not set out in this strategic doctrine, clear guidelines for when preemptive strikes are legitimate. How imminent must a threat be? Or must it be imminent at all? Does the United States alone make the judgement? And what does the word United States mean in that context? Who in the United States makes the judgement? Is it the president alone? Is it the president and the Congress?

///END ACT///

Mr. Hamilton is also concerned that less stable countries will embrace the preemptive policy.

///HAMILTON ACT 2///

What if preemption becomes a hunting license for other countries? Russia has already indicated its right to use preemption in Georgia. What if China preempts Taiwanese independence? What if India strikes preemptively against Pakistan? The global system could become one of considerable anarchy if this doctrine is widely applied.

///END ACT///

Geoffrey Kemp, director of Regional Strategic Studies at The Nixon Center, says the Bush administration's objectives are, in his words, "very correct and very sensible." But, he agrees the enemy list could be expanded.

///KEMP ACT///

Why is Syria not on the axis of evil? One reason I am told is that Syria has been remarkably cooperative when it comes to giving us leads concerning bin Laden and al-Qaida. Essentially Syria is having it both ways. It is off the axis of evil. It is helping us with an immediate real-time terrorist threat posed by al-Qaida and yet, at the same time, it hosts extremely aggressive groups who bear is no good will whatsoever and are engaged as we speak, in potentially extremely destabilizing action along the northern Israeli border and in the Palestinian territories themselves.

///END ACT///

A key question is whether or not the Bush administration has been intentional in its vagueness.

In his inaugural address, the president's only mention of foreign affairs was the warning that the United States "would meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength."

And when he first announced his new strategy in June at the graduation ceremonies at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Bush again was vague about which countries could be potential targets for preemptive strikes.

///BUSH ACT///

For much of the last century, America's defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence -- the promise of massive retaliation against nations -- means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.

///END ACT///

Max Boot, editorial features editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power", says the doctrine's ambiguity may be a good defense strategy.

///BOOT ACT///

I think the ambiguity about the use of the preemption doctrine is excellent. It is a very powerful tool in our arsenal. We should keep that ambiguity. We should keep Syria, Iran and various other states that dabble in terrorism, or do more than dabble in terrorism. We should keep them guessing. If we frighten them, good. I hope we do frighten them because what they are doing is waging war on the United States (and) on our allies.

///END ACT///

Analysts suggest Mr. Bush's view of the world is influenced by prominent members in his administration -- mainly Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at Washington's Cato Institute, says hawkish roots run deep in the Bush administration.

///CARPENTER ACT///

I would certainly argue that President Bush is no expert on foreign policy and he relies very heavily on his advisers. And unfortunately a very small group of neo-conservative hawks seem to have a disproportion influence.

///END ACT///

Mr. Carpenter says the Bush Doctrine is an updated version of a similar document crafted by Vice President Cheney while serving as defense secretary under George Bush Senior. Called the Pentagon Planning Guidance, it addressed America's role as a global policeman through boosting its military might.

Again, Ted Galen Carpenter:

///CARPENTER ACT 2///

The early outlines of their doctrine can be found back in that Pentagon doctrine in 1992, and with only modest changes in what is in the doctrine that has emerged in the year 2002.

///END ACT///

Newspapers in Europe have criticized President Bush's strategy as arrogant and dangerous. They say it is a blueprint for American global dominance and could provoke a great deal of hostility from other countries even those friendly to the United States.

But, The Wall Street Journal's Max Boot says other countries will soften their opposition to Mr. Bush's strategy.

///BOOT ACT 2///

These countries' -- bottom line -- do not want to be on the wrong side of history. They want to be with the winning side. They want to be on the side that makes the peace. Not the side that stands on the sidelines.

///END ACT///

Last week, President Bush signed a congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime. But analysts believe the president needs to look beyond Iraq, saying the best strategy for Mr. Bush is a clear plan on how he envisions the world in the future especially the Middle East.

For FOCUS, this is Mary Motta