Full Text: Bush’s National Security Strategy
What do you see as its strengths and weaknesses? Which aspects do you see as controversial? One possibly controversial aspect is in the 2[sup]nd[/sup] paragraph from the end
It’s bullshit.
“…Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require.”
“…when our interests and unique responsibilities require.”
Which is all the time.
Your link is worthless. You cannot enter without registering.
First, it is too long. Second, it seeks to be all things to all people. It favors consensus, diplomacy, and unilateral action all at the same time.
The flowery rhetoric supporting fundamental freedoms and democracy is good, assuming there is some follow through.
Of course, if we do act aggressively to create freedom and democracy we would be labeled a hegemon. Inaction will bring renewed claims of isolationism. Remember the good old days of “Bush, the isolationist”?
Those who already don’t like Bush will see the sky falling. Surely this is a worldwide Monroe Doctrine demanding that we invade everywhere - the chorus will sing out.
I think what we’re seeing is the Bush Administration’s Notice to the U.N.: You fall in line, or THIS is what the new world is going to look like.
I think this is hardball diplomacy directed at the U.N.
I disagree. I think it is a straightforward statement of the current administrations new foreign policy priorities. Anyway, what does that mean, “You fall in line, or else?” Effectively, as far as I can tell, it means that either way the US is going to reshape the world according to its own priorities. You’re either with us or against us.
Claiming the “right” to a “pre-emptive strike” against countries that the US labels “terrorist” is essentially equivalent to claiming a right to launch a war against any state that refuse to cater to US interests. Such a doctrine runs directly counter to the charter of the United Nations, in which the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states are guaranteed as the fundamental basis of all international relations. In other words, with this claim alone the US abandons its right to UN membership, and repudiates the only viable framework for state-to-state relations that I know of.
The history of US intervention in the internal affairs of other states does nothing to bolster one’s confidence. These interventions are a long, shameful litany of US support for barbaric, oppressive regimes whose primary pre-occupation has been the promotion of US commercial and strategic interests at the expense of decent human rights for the local populations. That these policies have been promoted by smarmy ideological slogans like “support for human rights and democracy” – or, in the case of this document, as a “distinctly American internationalism” (boy, you can say that again) – while the actual policies have accomplished quite the opposite, means nothing in terms of the historical record – which, I think, speaks for itself.
More disturbing still is the “doctrine” of “counter-proliferation.” If accepted, it effectively negates in one stroke nearly half a century of arms-control and non-proliferation treaty agreements. In 2000, the 187 co-signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (including the US) met to reaffirm their commitment to its principles, and decided that it would remain in force indefinitely; it was considered an important step forward in a world-wide attempt to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The NPT is one of the guiding documents of the IAEA, which was in its turn was responsible for, among other things, dismantling Iraqi nuclear weapons programs after the Gulf War. Now, apparently, less than two years later, Bush & Co. want to jettison all international agreements of this sort, and are patting themselves on the back for the bad faith they have displayed in unilaterally violating the ABM treaty. Apparently, when a foreign power breaks treaty agreements, it’s grounds for an invasion; but when the US does so, it’s a cause for celebration. The hypocrisy makes me sick to my stomach.
The claim that US citizens will never be subjected to the International Criminal Court further sickens me. Not only does this position protect US citizens from the potentially politically-motivated machinations of an international court; it also grants them carte blanche to indulge in acts of terror around the world, under the diplomatic immunity of the World Master. The US government apparently claims the right to do what it wants, when it wants, to whomever it wants, without suffering any consequences whatsoever. And without US support and participation, the ICC is effectively rendered powerless.
Finally, the declaration makes no bones about announcing US military hegemony, and its consequences, to the world. “Our forces will be strong enough,” the document states, “to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” In other words, we’re king of the roost and we intend to stay that way.
But let us pause here and imagine how we in the US might react if any other state (say, China) issued such a declaration. China officially declares that it has the right to intervene anywhere it sees fit, when it sees fit, if it perceives a threat to its national interests; that its citizens are hereby and forever immune from international prosecution in the event that they commit acts of terror; that it will from here on out, as a matter of official policy, ignore all its international its agreements and commitments, if it so chooses; and that its military superiority will be used to prevent any state – including the US – from ever achieving an equivalent status, or threatening its hegemonic dominance.
In short, this policy is nothing other than a Monroe Doctrine for the world.
The outline of the NSS is a lisst of oviously worthy goals; motherhood and apple pie, if you like. Here’s the outline:
Little or none of this is new. AFAIK this approach has guided US policy for a long time. (Even preventive strikes go back as far as JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis.)
I partly agree with **Mr. Svinlesha ** about this policy being a Monroe Doctrine for the world. (I disagree with “nothing but.”) More precisely, it sounds to me as if the NSS makes us the Policeman for the World. Is that so bad?
A Vietnam War slogan said the US can’t be the policeman for the world. But,the world needs a policeman. The risk of terrorist acquistion of WMDs is one obvious reason. Bad governments effectively committing genocide, as in Zimbabwe, is another.
The UN has not taken on the full responsibility one might have hoped they would. In particular, they have done little about the examples of WMD proliferation and Robert Mugabe. Other international organizations,m such as the EU, have also not done much. So, if the US doesn’t take steps, a lot of vital problems won’t be dealt with, and terrible consequences will ensue.
Hopefully, other countries and international organizations will follow our leadership. So, the NSS may stregthen these organizations by getting them to get involved in more effective action against the biggest of the world problems.
America is Right so how dare the rest of the world ask questions. Don’t you know That this is a Universal Truth that all the Planet earth has to accept???** < Irony Dripping in Large Puddle on the Floor> Mind you, one has to be careful with giving Americans Irony – they tend to think they can make Swords, Bullets and Missile Casings with it! They tend not to understand the word and it’s uses!**
America is to take unilateral action as it wishes and will kill maim and abuse – not just because of terror but because it wants natural resources as well – and that is what is being opened up here!
The president screams that “They” are a naughty country and so we go and whoop their ass – and the reward for America – More Oil – Cheaper resources – Consumers getting fatter.
Regime change and a safer world??? LOL. :smack:
Please don’t make me laugh. If that was the case 500000 dead marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq would have been enough cause for America to want Iraq sorted out. Half a Million Lives and stopping Genocide isn’t enough for Americans – only self interest is!
It’s action without rational means – it’s the “Hanging Niggras” of old cos they is Niggras – in a new disguise. We want Oil – it’s ours and we’re going to get it – It aint your back yard, we’re telling you it’s ours NOW - so get out of my way.
The interesting this is that the two Targets For America are both strategic when it comes to getting access to Oil from Southern Russia to American gas tanks. Also Iraq is an interesting country as it is the most water rich in the area – and so if America Controls Iraq it controls water and so life itself - never mind gas prices. That one is not mentioned much, but many world strategist have been talking about Iraq and water supplies along with war since 1970!
America either has to grow up and start playing nice with the other kids or it could find that the other kids just walk away and take their ball – the global economy else where! And that can happen. It doesn’t all have to go – just enough to make American Corporations bleed and suffer – Just like 9/11. Those planes were not the end – they were a warning – and America has decided to fool Americans whilst threatening anyone who decides to Flex their financial clout!
It is all to easy to see the USA playing World Bully and all the other kids on the block getting together and whooping the Bully’s Ass! – Economically! Imagine the Great depression all over again by 10 times deeper! That is what frightens the Shit out of the shrub – not Bin Laden or Saddam!
Even the most Neutral Country on the planet has now Joined the United Nations. It was a national Referendum and many Swiss have said they voted for so that Switzerland the most hands off country on the planet can also tell America to get lost and stop playing Bully Boy! What the world failed to do for 50 years, America did in 6 months – it turned the most Fiercely Neutral Country in the world Against them. WOW that is some trick!
Many have watched the Abuse of power shown by American in the UN over the International Criminal Court – and many see America’s avowed aim of going it alone a long hidden plan that is now emerging from the deeps. If America won’t play nice – well it may find the worlds Cold Shoulder harder than it thinks possible.
Bush may have made a speech at the UN and been seen to play nice – but that was to try and misguide many in the world. Bush Junior and his advisors may believe that they can fool Americans – but they arrogantly forget that the World is not America and others see the world in different ways.
One thing that gets me is the strategy of calling upon NATO immediately after 9/11 and using NATO in a way that was never planned or foreseen. I’m so glad that many NATO Partners are now refusing to help America wage a world war of terrorism. That is what it is and Millions of people are being denied food water and shelter because Bush wants a few extra points on his telephone polls and his advisors want power – power and more power!
What will it take to get Americans to be brave and intelligent. The war on Terrorism has been lost because Americans have given aid and comfort to the enemy by allowing themselves to be Terrorised. Since 9/11 America has become the Terror Capitol of the World – and the Terrorists love it. Now you have people willingly screaming that they will accept anything to stop the terror and they abdicate responsibility believing that a man in an office in Washington can stop them being terrorised. Only the person themselves can stop that and my question is why do so many Americans prefer the terror and to abdicate responsibility? Exactly how does it make them feel so superior and why do they want to feel Superior that way?
After having read the document, I am inclined to agree with the rest of the posters.
The reason I said that this looked like hardball diplomacy is because apparently this document was released to Congress with an especially clear notice that the government was willing to modify this document if Congress requires it. The administration basically said, “This is too big of a policy shift to enact without the full support of Congress and the American people”.
In other words, here’s a really scary new policy, but we’re still willing to change it. I guess the real question is how much the administration is willing to change it, and what the purpose was of releasing this just as the Iraq political campaign is coming to a head.
But if this document is the real thing, and is not substantially changed, then I think you are looking at an historic moment. This is in essence a declaration of a Pax Americana - the moment the United States essentially became an empire.
The problem I have with this document is that it fails the ‘what if a bad guy were elected’ test. Whenever the government announces a new policy that gives them new power, it’s important to think about not what the current government might do with that power, but what the worst possible government would do with it.
Implicit in this document is the statement, “We can be trusted with this power, because we are the good guys.”
When your checks and balances on power are rooted in the trust in your own goodness, you’d better damned well stay good.
Personally I think it’s bluster which won’t be backed by any action.
For instance one of its goals is to prevent another superpower from challenging the US. Unfortunately there is little that the US can do to prevent that. For instance in about 30-40 years the Chinese economy could easily be strong enought to support a military-industrial compled as powerful as the US. What exactly is the US going to do to prevent this?
It will be difficult for the US to slow down the growhth of Chinese economy and doing so will probably harm US economic interests. Ultimately that growth depends on Chinese policy.
Similarly if the Chinese want to build up their military there is nothing the US can do about it. The US can well contain the Chinese if they become a superpower but there is little they can do to prevent them from becoming one in the first place. The same goes for India which is 10-20 years behind China but which may also become a superpower in the long run.
Of course the Bush people may claim that their policy isn’t looking that far ahead but then it becomes redundant since no country is capable of challenging the US in the short-to-medium
run in term of coventional military strength. Even if there was there would be little the US could do about it.
I think it will all end in a nuclear winter after all. Osama won… we are all dead.
I think it’s important to put this new “strategy” in the proper (recent) historical context. For the past 50 years or so, any adversary of the USA could be pretty much certain that they were not at risk of US action unless they (the adversary) struck first. So, I believe the reason that this new policy or “strategy” is being emphasized so loudly is primarily to put the old one to rest, and not as a first step to a series of first strikes.
The US is not saying that they will always be the ones to strike first, or even the ones likely to strike first. Rather they’re saying that now they may be the ones who strike first.
Embracing this new policy does not obligate the US to strike pre-emptively. It simply allows for the possibility and thus becomes a deterrent to any nation, leader, or satrap who may be thinking of attacking the US.
A little pre-emptive fiddling with rice and wheat pathogens ? Once we start responding to all imagined threats, we’ll quickly find that we need to envision, and employ, all imaginable solutions. Anything less would leave us vulnerable.
If, as you say, it’s all just bluster, then it is very dangerous bluster. One of America’s enemies may take the document at face value and feel compelled to respond appropriately.
I think it shows Bush to be a criminal and the US to be the next “rogue” nation. God I wish someone would take that fool and all his criminal buddies and wipe them the fuck out.
Never has there been such cause to overthrow our own government as thee is right now. BEFORE bush starts his latest round of murders.
His latest round of murders? What, pray tell, were his first round of murders? Or are you just delivering the stock leftist knee-jerk response?
No wonder I keep having recurring nightmares about nuclear war.
Hold me-I’m scared!
:eek:
“Embracing this new policy does not obligate the US to strike pre-emptively. It simply allows for the possibility and thus becomes a deterrent to any nation, leader, or satrap who may be thinking of attacking the US.”
Or it could act the other way and make such leaders believe that the best way of ensuring their survival is to speed up their WMD activities and acquire a handful of nukes which could deter the US from invading their countries.
"A little pre-emptive fiddling with rice and wheat pathogens ? "
I am assuming you aren’t serious here. Not least because the Chinese are easily capable of responding in kind and may go beyond attacking crops. Unprovoked biological warfare with the Chinese is hardly going to enhance US security
I agree with you 100% that this kind of bluster is dangerous .
We’re much better at it than they; and besides, who’s to say that they need ever know ? The possibility you raise of the Chinese “Responding in kind” smacks of cold war, MAD, logic. Isn’t it one of the major selling points of the Bush doctrine, that we’ve moved beyond such immoral cold war calculations ?
What is the most reasonable response to this.
- Shit
- Go blind
- Run screaming from the room and bang my head against the wall until it bleeds.
Ponder, ponder.
Eeeeeeyyaaaaaggh!!! bang, bang, bang…
Yes thats it.
“We’re much better at it than they; and besides, who’s to say that they need ever know ?”
How do you know the US is better? There are plenty of first rate Chinese scientists and the Chinese government can work with much less legal/democratic constraints (eg. maybe expirimenting on live prisoners).
About detection if you are talking about attacks which seriously disrupt the Chinese economy they will have to be so large that it would be difficult to make them undetectable.
“that we’ve moved beyond such immoral cold war calculations ?”
So unilaterally attacking Chinese agrigulture without provocation
and possibly killing millions through a famine is “moral”? In any case if the US attacks China, China will retaliate. Just saying that Bush has moved beyond cold-war calcuations doesn’t change that reality.