Bush National Security Strategy Drawing Both Praise and Criticism by John Shaw President George W. Bushís new national security strategy (NSS), released Sept. 20, has generated enormous interest and intense debate from the halls of Congress to embassies and foreign ministries across the world. Interest is especially high as tensions continue to mount between the United States and Iraq, with Bush recently signing a new resolution to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein and pressing the United Nations to compel Iraq to submit to unconditional weapons inspections. Supporters of Bushís new pre-emptive doctrine describe it as a bold, direct, visionary strategy for a dangerous world. Critics deride it as an ill-conceived, arrogant and damaging document that raises more questions than answers and creates more problems than it solves. Like it or hate it, the NSS has generated a vigorous domestic and global discussion about Americaís role in the world and the structure of the international political system. The Economist magazine has called the doctrine ìone of the most important geopolitical documents produced for a long time.î Foreign policy experts liken it to NSC 68, the famous 1950 document of the Truman administration that codified the United Statesís containment strategy, which guided the nationís foreign policy for nearly half a century. Congress requires the executive branch to submit a national security plan, but few administrations have used the document to seriously re-examine Americaís role in the world. The Bush administration did not submit a strategic plan during its first year in office, but key officials said they wanted to present one this year that was meaningful and substantial. Drafted primarily by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, the NSS was also reviewed and shaped by Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others. Bush discussed the document frequently with Rice and edited the final draft, seeking language and arguments that could be understood by the ìboys in Lubbock.î The Bush strategy is far different from former President Bill Clintonís 1999 plan that focused on international economic issues and the status of a host of international accords, such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto global warming pact, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The language, themes and strategic view of the Bush plan are profoundly shaped by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, but despite this, the document also includes themes and an orientation the Bush administration embraced before 9/11. These include glancing references to international institutions, a scornful assessment of the International Criminal Court, and an unapologetic unilateral bent. Rice has said that Bush wanted this document to be the definitive statement of the administrationís foreign policy goals and vision. For better or for worse, that is indeed what it is. The 33-page NSS document discusses the importance of economic growth, global development, the consolidation of democracy, and the urgent need to tackle the HIV/AIDS crisis. But it has attracted the most attention for its unabashed expressions of American exceptionalism, its pledge to ensure the United States remains the worldís most militarily powerful nation, and its aggressive advocacy of the doctrine of pre-emption. The NSS sees a world brimming with threats that are different from, but not less ominous than, those of the Cold War era. It says that while none of the contemporary threats rival the destructive power that was arrayed against the United States by the Soviet Union, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers once available only to the worldís strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will indeed use weapons of mass destruction, make the current security environment more complex and dangerous. The NSS says that it has taken almost a decade for the United States to comprehend the true nature of this new threat in which radicalism and new technology are married. ìEnemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capacities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us,î it says. The document also says nations that enjoy freedom must actively fight terror and help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And it pledges the United States will lead that fightóand wage it alone if necessary. ìGiven the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of todayís threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversariesí choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first,î it notes. ìWe will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by Ö defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country,î it says. The document says that for centuries, ìinternational law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack.î It acknowledges that legal scholars have often conditioned the legitimacy of pre-emption on the existence of an imminent threat, usually in the form of armies, navies and air forces preparing to strike. But the NSS argues that new post-Sept. 11 realities require a modification in how pre-emption is considered and employed. ìThe United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inactionóand the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemyís attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively,î it says. The document says the United States will not use force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats and cautions other nations not to use this strategy as a pretext for aggression. It says the United States will act only to eliminate a specific threat to itself or allies and friends. The reasons for any pre-emptive action must be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. Bush administration officials have vigorously defended the new strategic plan as a forceful and realistic way to deal with a dangerous world. Rice has explained the doctrine in a number of interviews and recently traveled to New York to defend it before the Manhattan Institute. In that address, she said the NSS does not represent a repudiation of the United Statesís historic strategic doctrine, adding that containment and deterrence will be used when appropriate. ìBut some threats are so potentially catastrophicóand can arrive with so little warning, by means that are untraceableóthat they cannot be contained. Extremists who seem to view suicide as a sacrament are unlikely to be ever deterred. And new technology requires new thinking about when a threat actually becomes imminent. So as a matter of common sense, the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized,î she said. Rice noted that pre-emption is a well-established precept of international life and law, noting, however, that it should be approached with great caution. ìThe number of cases in which it might be justified will always be small. It does not give a green lightóto the United States or any other nationóto act first without first exhausting other means, including diplomacy. Pre-emptive action does not come at the beginning of a long change of effort. The threat must be very grave. And the risks of waiting must far outweigh the risks of actions,î she said. Powell has defended the plan before Congress this fall, but under sharp and often skeptical questioning, he appeared determined to soften some of its rough edges. He also emphasized that the NSS doesnít represent an end to containment. ìWhat it says is that there is a new threat that is different from the threats we have engaged in the past. Deterrence and containment as strategies have not gone away. Pre-emption has always been a tool available to a president, not just in this administration but throughout military history,î he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late September. ìAnd you will find that [the NSS] talks about the traditional tools of national security and military forces, and then it shifts and talks about the new threat we are facing from terrorists and why pre-emption is something that should rise in our hierarchy of available options,î he said. The Bush doctrine has been received cautiously by international leaders with few openly criticizing it but even fewer praising it. There have been some very tough critics of the NSS inside the United States as well, including several senior officials from the Clinton administration. One of the main concerns is that if pre-emption is articulated as a universal doctrine, it could allow other nations, such as Russia, China, India and Pakistan, to employ it in response to ìperceivedî threats. Former American ambassador to the United Nations Richard C. Holbrooke told the Senate Foreign Relations panel that while the United States has always reserved the right to act pre-emptively, it has also very purposefully stopped short of proclaiming it as an official doctrine that would have universal applicability. He said the Bush administration has made a big mistake by creating the NSS because it can only encourage other nations to embrace pre-emption as well. ìIím sorry to see it was introduced. It didnít help us internationally. Why declare a doctrine that is unnecessary? It was always there,î Holbrooke said. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was also sharply critical of Bushís pre-emption doctrine in her testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. ìI also question the administrationís wisdom in publicly adding new and ostentatiously hegemonic language to our national security strategy. This document brags unnecessarily about American strength and gives ammunition to those who accuse us of pursuing our interests without regard to international norms,î she pointed out. ìThere is a gathering danger that America will be perceived as a nation uninterested in the concerns of others at the precise moment we most need global cooperation to fight terrorism, proliferation and menacing dictators, such as Saddam Hussein,î she added. Even a Republican stalwart, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was cool to the Bush doctrine. ìAs the most powerful nation in the world, the United States has a special unilateral capacity and, indeed, obligation to lead in implementing its convictions. But it also has a special obligation to justify its actions by principles that transcend the assertions of preponderant power. It cannot be in either the American national interest or the worldís interest to develop principles that grant every nation an unfettered right of pre-emption against its own definition of threats to its security,î he said. In a detailed speech on the Senate floor in early October, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, said the administration has confused the very different concepts of preventive and pre-emptive action. He said that pre-emptive action refers to times when states react to an imminent threat of attack, adding that the global community is generally tolerant of such actions because no nation should have to suffer a certain first strike before it has the legitimacy to respond. However, Kennedy noted that preventive military action refers to strikes that target a country before it has developed the capability that could someday be threatening. He said that historically the United States has condemned the idea of preventive war because it violates basic international rules against aggression. But Kennedy said he is most troubled that Bushís doctrine will undermine support and sympathy for America in the world. ìThe administrationís doctrine is a call for 21st-century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept. It is the antithesis of all that America has worked so hard to achieve in international relations since the end of World War II,î he said. ìThis is not just an academic debate. There are important real-world consequences. A shift in our policy toward preventive war would reinforce the perception of America as a bully in the Middle East and would fuel anti-American sentiment throughout the Islamic world and beyond,î he added. Georgetown University professor G. John Ikenberry, in a major essay in Foreign Affairs magazine, said the Bush administrationís new strategy is replete with dangers. ìAmericaís nascent neo-imperial grand strategy threatens to rend the fabric of the international community and political partnerships precisely at a time when that community and those partnerships are urgently needed. It is an approach that is fraught with peril and likely to fail. It is not only politically unsustainable but diplomatically harmful. And if history is a guide, it will trigger antagonism and resistance that will leave America in a more hostile and divided world,î he wrote. Ikenberry added that for the first time since the dawn of the Cold War, a new grand strategy is taking shape in Washington that is advocated as a response to terrorism but also constitutes a broader view about how the United States should wield power and organize world order. He said that according to this new paradigm, America may be less bound to its partners and to global institutions as it steps forward to play a more unilateral and anticipatory role in attacking terrorist threats and confronting rogue states seeking weapons of mass destruction. ìUnchecked U.S. power, shorn of legitimacy and disentangled from the postwar norms and institutions of the international order, will usher in a more hostile international system, making it far harder to achieve American interests. The secret of the U.S.ís long brilliant run as the worldís leading state was its ability and willingness to exercise power within alliance and multinational frameworks, which made its power and agenda more acceptable to allies and other key states around the world. This achievement has now been put at risk by the administrationís new thinking,î he wrote. Bernard Lewis, an American diplomat for 35 years, recently offered a stinging critique of the Bush doctrine in The Washington Post. While crediting the NSS for eloquence and coherence, Lewis said ìphrases that resonate in the halls of Congress often send chills down the spines of foreigners who constantly eavesdrop on our debates, trying to separate political theater from our real intentions.î He noted that pre-emption has been a U.S. option since the first days of the republic. ìSo why trumpet a new ëdoctrineí about our right to do so, thereby providing enemies of various stripes with potent ammunition for speeches at international bodies, media assaults and attacks on embarrassed allies and friends abroad who defend our policies,î he asked. Lewis said that the new American doctrine will seriously complicate future American diplomac y, which requires persuasion that concentrates on obtaining a result rather than publicizing the other partyís weaknesses or concessions. British historian John Keegan, also writing in the Post, said the Bush doctrine is far more ambitious than many appreciate and thus will be extremely costly and demanding to implement. ìUnspoken in Bushís national security document is the idea that small, unstable, self-seeking states under dictatorial control must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq happens merely to be the first in that category to appear. Its pretensions to nuclear power must be quashed. Butóand this is the real import of the presidentís statementóso must similar pretensions, if and when they appear, forever. The president has committed his country to a fearsome duty. It will never go away,î he said. Although Congress and the international community are mostly focused on the immediate threat of Iraq, there is little doubt that an intense debate lies ahead on the new Bush doctrine as it applies to other nations, making further congressional hearings and debates the only virtual certainty in these uncertain times. John Shaw is a contributing writer to The Washington Diplomat.