Pre-emptive Force

Jolie Rouge

Bush clings to pre-emptive force
Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:44 PM ET
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush clung to his doctrine of using preemptive force against threats of weapons of mass destruction on Thursday despite his experience in Iraq, and said Iran may be America's biggest security challenge.

A new White House national security strategy document said it was the strong U.S. preference to use international diplomacy to address weapons proliferation concerns. "If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document said.

Bush outlined the preemptive force doctrine in 2002 and many critics believe he used it as a framework for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq three years ago over weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said it was ominous that the Bush administration "would even attempt to resuscitate its radical doctrine of preventive war."

"By any standard, it's been an utter failure in Iraq and has weakened our security, not strengthened it," Kennedy said.

The United States and its European allies are locked in a test of wills with Iran over suspicions that Tehran is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program despite its insistence that it merely wants atomic power for civilian use. "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," said the new strategy document.

White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley defended the policy at the U.S. Institute of Peace, saying it was essential in the wake of the September 11 attacks and with militant groups seeking to acquire dangerous weapons. "The president has made clear we need to use all the tools of national power to try to deal with and avoid that threat, but at the end of the day, effective use of military force in a smart, measured way has to remain part of your inventory," he said.

DIPLOMACY BEFORE CONFRONTATION

The document emphasized the need for diplomacy, while adding without elaboration: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

Bush has never taken the military option off the table, although experts believe U.S. involvement in the Iraq war is a limiting factor.

A national security expert at the Cato Institute think tank, Ted Galen Carpenter, saw a link between Bush's retention of the preemptive force policy and the talk of Iran as a major challenge.

"Highlighting Iran as the principal threat that the United States faces certainly brings the preemption doctrine back into play," he said.

Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he believed Bush was using the document to shift strategy away from emphasizing force to focusing more on diplomacy because he has learned that threats cannot be defeated by military force alone.

"It (the Bush administration) has been forced to change course by necessity rather than out of conviction," he said.

The document cited other concerns about Iran: that it sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel, seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq, and denies freedom to Iranians. It said these can only be resolved if Iran makes the strategic decision to change its policies, open its political system and allow freedom.

"This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy," the document said. "In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct."

The document sought to draw a line between Iran's leaders and the Iranian people, saying "our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing."

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...URITY-BUSH.xml

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Inaction failed
By Clifford D. May
Fri Mar 17, 6:58 AM ET

If we learned anything from 9/11 it's that doing nothing while tyrants and terrorists plot to kill Americans is not a viable policy.

But that was U.S. policy for more than 25 years. When Iranian revolutionaries seized our embassy yelling, "Death to America," we said to ourselves: "They probably don't mean it."


When, in 1983, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah slaughtered hundreds of American troops in Lebanon, we said: "If we get out of their way, perhaps they'll settle down."


After the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993, we did nothing to those who sent terrorists to our shores.


So before we decide that pre-emption has been a failure, let's acknowledge this: It is because the alternative failed that President Bush came to the conclusion that sometimes it is necessary to use force before attacks occur. It is not enough to attempt to punish our enemies after the blood has been cleaned from our streets.


Nor is deterrence a realistic policy. You can't deter someone who believes that murdering children will earn him a place in paradise.


It's easy to conclude we'd have been better off had we responded to Saddam Hussein's threats and defiance with continued inaction. But Iraq proves nothing. The battle isn't over. We may yet prevail. Or we may be defeated - as we were in Somalia and Vietnam and other conflicts whose outcomes strengthened our enemies' conviction that America lacks the will to resist.


It is disappointing that the CIA didn't accurately appraise Saddam's capabilities. But even Saddam's generals were shocked to find that no VX nerve gas would be available to them.


We also know that Saddam intended to restock his arsenals. And we know he supported and trained terrorists, at such facilities as Salman Pak - now closed for business thanks to U.S. military forces.


It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden? We knew his intentions. We didn't take pre-emptive action. Don't you wish we had?


If Americans have learned anything, it should be this: When people say they intend to kill you, take them seriously.

Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...A2BHNlYwM3NDI-

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Pre-emption draws surprising consensus
Commentary by Irshad Manji
Fri Mar 24, 2006

Shocked. Appalled. Outraged.

These sentiments have been expressed by many Americans in response to the 2006 national security report. Released last week, the report affirmed President Bush's faith in pre-emptive action against potential threats to the United States.


While I think such faith is misguided, I'm enough of a historian to know that George W. Bush isn't alone in his approach. Other statesmen have shared his belief in pre-emption. Some of them are even lionized by Bush's harshest critics: Muslim-Americans.


Consider the prophet Mohammed himself. According to Muslim history, God's own messenger engaged in pre-emptive action against those whom he suspected of plotting against Islam. There's the well-known example of Jewish tribes who refused to take Mohammed as their prophet. After rumors intensified that these Jews were collaborating with Arab pagans to kill the prophet, Mohammed and his companions struck first. They exiled two of the tribes and later acted on a Muslim arbiter's opinion that a third tribe should be slaughtered.


Self-defense, my fellow Muslims will insist. Bush has said the same about invading Iraq, but I don't see too many Muslims accepting that argument. Ah, but the president never had hard evidence for his claims. Fact is, neither did prophet Mohammed. He went on faith.


In drawing this comparison, I'm bound to be accused of besmirching the reputation of Islam's prophet and thereby joining the Danish cartoonists in infidel hell. But as many Americans believe that dissent is a patriotic duty, so I believe that self-criticism lives up to the best ideals of the Quran, Islam's holy book. One of its most beautiful verses tells us to "bear true witness, even if it be against yourselves, your parents, or your family." In other words, be honest, no matter whose feathers it ruffles.


Honesty demands that Muslims in the USA judge the doctrine of pre-emption by a single standard. That requires making a choice. We can accept what the prophet did as necessary and guided by God, in which case we can't be shocked when the president makes a similar case for his policy. Or we can acknowledge that the prophet Mohammed's pre-emptive assaults on Jews were morally wrong, in which case we've got credibility when slamming the Bush doctrine.


I don't deny that the Bush administration's record on freedom and human rights has been hypocritical. But I refuse to hand Muslim-American leaders any moral triumph as long as they validate for the prophet a sin that they castigate in the president.


Irshad Manji is a fellow at Yale University and author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/200...BHNlYwMxNz A0

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?