Bush Preemptive War Strategy Reaffirmed

Link To Story

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 16, 2006; A01

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.

Please visit above link for complete story

The whole issue in itself of preemptive war will probably be argued for the rest of time we're on the planet. And one of my biggest issues with it is that if we continue down that path, it won't be long before the other countries in the "Axis of Evil" start a little preemption of their own.

Just this week North Korea has reaffirmed its stance from last year that "Preemptive warfare is not an exclusive right of the United States."

This could not be more true, just as in my opinion it is not our inherent right to decide what countries will and will not have nuclear energy or weapons. History is doomed to repeat itself, and every major empire has eventually fallen. Why is it that we can preach and preach that one religion should not force itself upon another, but yet the American hedgemony can't seem to make that distinction with governments?

Democracy backfired recently on NWO agenda with the election of HAMAS. It is not suited to all people of all lands, who live by different rules and have different cultural values. If we would have others do upon us what we would do to them, I believe it certain that preemption will one day find the USA. That day is approaching, and only because this administration and others have continually lead us down that path. It is time to stop this lunacy.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]

Agreed. Adoption of "preemptive warfare" as a legitimate strategy by the United States heralded the end of American world leadership. Instead of setting an example to other nations, we now have a defensive posture which only places us at odds with the world, half of which is full of nations which would just love to preemptively strike the other half. As a police strategy, preemptive strikes might be valid, particularly in fighting terror. Unfortunately, this administration has seen fit to forego internationally collaborative police work in favor of a dangerous new foreign policy.

It's no wonder that poll after poll notes that most Americans don't feel any safer since the war on terror began.

History is doomed to repeat itself, and every single major empire has eventually fallen to a conquering army

Thats not entirely true. From what I can gather of all the "Empires" to have existed, one springs to mind that didn't fall to a conquering army. The British Empire. Ours fell to a force far more powerfull....money. Or the lack of to be precise. The World Wars sapped Britain of the economic and political will to maintain the Empire and it just disintergrated.

Anyhoo...Sorry to stray off topic...

koji_k, nice additional points, I couldn't agree more.

Yeah, thanks for correcting that stu, I changed the sentance to read more appropriately (I think). Do you have a more relavent comment on the story?

First up – I am NOT a George Bush fan

BUT…

We cannot dismiss a preemptive doctrine completely as a bad thing. If there is undisputable evidence or intelligence that states there is immanent danger or threat, offensive action is more than justified. Obviously that is not the case in Iraq, but in theory it’s simply the only recourse if threat is a given. And of course the level of threat should be taken into account as well.

Look at Iran for example. They preach death to the infidels all day long, and their leaders don’t even attempt to hide the threats. These very same leaders are ACTIVELY developing nuclear weapons and have all but walked away from any diplomacy to resolve the issue. Even Russia is being snubbed after making 11th hour offers to enrich plutonium for Iran. Many nuclear nations have offered to provide Iran with everything they need to create nuclear energy, but Iran still says no. Why? Because they want to make weapons, and the enrichment needs to be done at home to do this. So now we have a nation that announces on a regular basis its desire to destroy nations and entire cultures of people actively developing nuclear weapons to achieve that goal. Is a pre emptive strike warranted in this case?


Let’s use this analogy:
A guy down the street hates you and wants to kill you and tells you every time he has the chance. His whole family doesn’t hate you, but he certainly does. In the mean time you see him down at the license department applying for a gun permit and also at the gun shop ordering a new assault rifle. A guy who has threatened your life is actively acquiring an assault rifle. Do you wait for him to show up at your house to make good on his threats? Or do you call the police PRIOR to you and your families murder? Are you justified for doing something about the threat before it happens?

Leader MUST have preemptive strike ability. Not for every situation, but the ability must be an option.

Yeah sure it should be kept as an option. But keep in mind it is also an option for them.

I see your reasoning, skippy, and I could almost go along with it for some cases. The funny thing is, this is one of them- FROM ISRAEL'S PERSPECTIVE, not the US's. Iran has threatened to wipe them off the map, and Israel's destruction is also written in HAMAS's charter.

But also, along your line of reasoning, then why hasn't the US attacked China or Russia preemptively? I mean they have nukes pointing right at us! THAT is a direct threat. Or why hasn't India attacked Pakistan preemptively?

And why is it that we don't even hear European nations, who WOULD be under a direct nuclear threat from Iran if they got the bomb, talking about preemptive strikes? Why is the US taking this lead? I mean clearly there are countries in the immediate area that would be vastly more directly affected if Iran acquires nukes.

If Europe was so concerned about nuclear proliferation to terrorists, which seems to be Washington's publicized main concern with Iran, then EUROPE should do something about it, because they have way more at immediate stake. Saudi Arabia. Jordan. Turkey. Iraq, even.

No no, there is something else going on here man. If you draw the parallel between North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, what does Iraq and Iran have lots of that North Korea does not have? And hey, North Korea had and has much more of a potential to proliferate to terrorists, because we can be just about certain that they ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB. So if for the US it is about proliferation to terrorists, then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE NOT PREEMPTIVELY STRIKING NORTH KOREA FIRST?

The bottom line to me is that is not about proliferation to terrorists. This is not about fear of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. This is even not about Israel, although that's a different dynamic, and one they themselves have vowed to cure if they sense Iran going nuclear. This, my friend, is about texas teed/black gold, and a desire of this administration to control those resources.

And all right under China's nose, and in their face? At least that's what the Bush cabal THINKS. I contend they are sorely mistaken, and it has been shown that with the staggering growth in China, they will be left no choice but to contest the US in the Gulf. It's just a matter of when.

Preemptive? Yeah right.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]

You know, there's a time for preemptive strikes.

Like if major miltary movement was detected along China's border and it became very clear that they were about to invade India or something. Or if for instance, Iraq was about to invade Kuwait. Ha, where were the preemptive strikes then, eh?

Or if conclusive intelligence evidence proved that Russia was about to launch on us. Or if Cuba was about to invade Florida. You name it. But this is rediculous.

Yep, I'm all about preemptive strikes.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

No no, there is something else going on here man. If you draw the parallel between North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, what does Iraq and Iran have lots of that North Korea does not have? And hey, North Korea had and has much more of a potential to proliferate to terrorists, because we can be just about certain that they ALREADY HAVE THE BOMB. So if for the US it is about proliferation to terrorists, then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE NOT PREEMPTIVELY STRIKING NORTH KOREA FIRST?

I often wonder about this as well. I have quite a number of Korean friends (from South Korea, obviously) and they tell me that they're quite pissed off that the US isn't doing anything about Kim Jong Il when that crazy dude said so openly in one of his speeches that "we have nukes pointed at the US and can destroy Washington anytime."

That's definitely more vocal and in your face than Saddam saying he has no WMDs or Ahmadinejad saying his country isn't trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Something else is going on, for sure.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

The bottom line to me is that is not about proliferation to terrorists. This is not about fear of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. This is even not about Israel, although that's a different dynamic, and one they themselves have vowed to cure if they sense Iran going nuclear. This, my friend, is about texas teed/black gold, and a desire of this administration to control those resources.

I would agree that oil is a huge part of it, as it factors into a strategic vision that this administration has, and America's place in that vision, economically and militarily. A problem with realizing that vision is up until recently, the Executive had to contend with Congress and public opinion before it could convince them that war was necessary... by going on record and making preemptive strikes a national policy, you now bypass that problem by striking first, justifying after the fact.

I can't think of any other reason for publically renouncing older doctrines for the preemptive strike policy, given both the suspicious contradictions that you mentioned already regarding countries like N. Korea, and also that, while I agree it's necessary to have the capability to make such strikes, we've had that capacity since World War 2 ended- we just saw the need to confront problems through alliance building and international cooperation. Even Reagan, who I think had many flaws, was very skilled at doing that. This administration, however, has taken the United States into a very defensive posture, I am assuming because its vision for America and American foreign policy is no longer compatible with the older policy. This, in turn, is either because the current cabinet is supremely arrogant, short-sighted, confident in America's ability to "go it alone," aware of the incompabiltiy of American foreign policy with the interests of our traditional allies, or some combination of the four.

The world may be a different place since the cold-war, but we have to remember that terrorism is as old as ancient history. The blurry borders between some nation states and terror groups shouldn't be taken to be anything new. Even recently (and currently) France and Britain, for example, have had very effective anti-terror campaigns which were based primarily on intelligence gathering and cooperation on the international level, rather than preemptive strikes. Terror groups have always claimed the backing of one nation or other, but only recently have we started to label nations as terrorist nations. Something strikes me as odd about that.



[edit on 16-3-2006 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
Even recently (and currently) France and Britain, for example, have had very effective anti-terror campaigns which were based primarily on intelligence gathering and cooperation on the international level, rather than preemptive strikes. Terror groups have always claimed the backing of one nation or other, but only recently have we started to label nations as terrorist nations. Something strikes me as odd about that.

Yeah, didn't this originate with Bush when he said something to the effect that "If nations can't control their terrorists, we will go after those nations that harbor them??

That's like saying: "If you can't control your child, I am going to wipe out your whole family." And then proceed to do it, too. "And oh by the way, if I even suspect your family's child of influencing another family's child to take part and do us harm, then hey, I'm going wipe out your entire family and theirs before you ever get the chance."

Preemptive warfare is a dilusional state of mind. Think about it. My neighbor has a gun. Should I go and kill him just because I suspect he might use it against me? When you relate that to nations, this is basically what is happenning here, and worse, it is happening under false, alterior motives that are being covered up with public propaganda. If this reasoning is allowed to trickle down and infiltrate the human essence, we are indeed doomed as a race.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
koji_k, nice additional points, I couldn't agree more.

Yeah, thanks for correcting that stu, I changed the sentance to read more appropriately (I think). Do you have a more relavent comment on the story?

In hindsight, my comments could be relevant to the topic. As the American "Empire" (using the term loosely) will probably fall from grace due to similar over commitments and economic strain.

Time will tell

What I'm wondering is when Bush will use this strategy next. He's used it just once and should Bush leave office, its very possible it won't be used ever again for a long time.

With three years left of his presidency, I'm wondering if he's ever gonna have an opportunity to use that strategy again.

Interesting, one country opens the door and the rest just will follow behind, If US can do what it does to control who gets what.

I guess other countries can just do the same, and who is going to stop them? US.

Look at the results in Iraq, no weapons and all a lie.

I wonder sometimes who really is going to start the nuclear holocaust.

It may come as a surprised.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by marg6043]

Bush wants to use Nuclear Bunker Busters in Iran

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.
...
Firing der Bush’s bunker busters in Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, will vaporize hundreds of thousands of tons of earth, water and rock and send this radioactive soup downwind to kill and sicken whole populations. Those immediately downwind will die quickly, in hours or days. Those further downwind will take longer. The global incidences of cancers and disease will again rise markedly. The land downwind will remain contaminated and unusable for generations.

I have a hard time imagining using these in a preemptive strike, but I guess he would have to guarantee they couldn't strike back.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
With three years left of his presidency, I'm wondering if he's ever gonna have an opportunity to use that strategy again.

What, are ya kiddin? Now that the warmongers know that's it cool to preemptively blast whoever they want, whenever they want, unimpeded by the screams from the American public, and as of yet unopposed militarily, it's gametime baby! There's no one stepping into Cheney's line of fire here. (ok that was bad, I admit it.)

And Marg, I hear ya. I've been saying for a long time, you push the world's buttons long and hard enough, someone's gonna push the real button.

Yeah BH, we've been round and round already on that one in some other threads here. Sheesh. Nukes in the Gulf- rediculous. If DU levels all over the place rose to the heights they did from the reports we've seen here, then you can only imagine the radiation that will spread from all those "politically correct, low-yield nukes." I think the conclusion of the FAS was finally that it would be a really stupid idea considering that it could be done in other ways with conventional weapons.

It's to the point that if that happens unimpeded by either China or Russia, I will certainly lose every bit of respect for those countries for not interceding. I mean face it. You can't stop it, and neither can I. We almost have to ask for outside help to stop this lunacy. And if it means getting attacked, then what other solution do we have to stop this maniac? It's a case of where diplomacy has failed us- in our own country.

The Preemptive Strategy exits in two places. The first place is in the mind of Foxnews zombies and Bushs speeches. The 2nd place is reality , now in reality there are some problems. If the Preemptive Strategy was to continue and the US government was to alienate any more of its current allies the Strategy would become military and economically unsustainable.

If you follow the current line of thinking you have to overlook the fact that the US government aided some of its future enemys in the last 20 - 30 years.

Originally posted by xpert11
If the Preemptive Strategy was to continue and the US government was to alienate any more of its current allies the Strategy would become military and economically unsustainable.

What do you mean WAS to continue? It IS to continue, and that's what the article is about. I'd also venture that militarily it is already unsustainable due to the sheer economic drain on this country. Thank God they are working towards finally pulling out. But if it IS to continue, then what does that mean? If we manage to work things out with Iran by some stroke of luck, or genius, as the case may be, then who is next? North Korea? Syria?

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


What do you mean WAS to continue? It IS to continue, and that's what the article is about.

It will continue untill the 2008 elections and then a number of factors could come into play.

I'd also venture that militarily it is already unsustainable due to the sheer economic drain on this country.

You are probaly correct the US government seems to have more money then sense. If you apply the preemptive strategy was applyed consistency then the US would have already occupied the likes of North Korea and Iran. That raises another flaw with the handeling of the preemptive strategy it hasnt been applyied with any consistency.

Originally posted by xpert11
That raises another flaw with the handeling of the preemptive strategy it hasn't been applyied with any consistency.

That is due to the fact that US preemptive strategy is only going after the countries that can have an impact on the administration agenda.

Korea has nothing that our administration wanted, but Iran does, they are next.

This preemptive strategy is very selective.

Originally posted by xpert11
...the US government seems to have more money then sense.

Frankly, I don't think they have much of either....

Senate increases limit on debt to $9 trillion

And btw, Marg, can I join your band? Maybe we could play some Merengue, or Salsa even?