Bush to reaffirm preemption as security strategy
RAW STORY
Published:
Wednesday March 15, 2006
Print This | Email This"President Bush plans to issue a new national security
strategy Thursday reaffirming his doctrine of pre-emptive war against
terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear
weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq," begins a story slated for the front page of Thursday's Washington Post, RAW STORY has learned.
Excerpts from the article written by Peter Baker:
#
In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the
preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as
necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin
to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a
greater emphasis on working in concert with allies and declares
diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of
weapons of mass destruction.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self
defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if
uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,"
the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD
are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as
grave dangers materialize."
Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the
United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the
U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly
developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush
described an Iran with nuclear arms as a "grave threat to the
security of the world."
Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to
preemption. "Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful
tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in
everybody's face," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. "To have a strategy on
preemption and make it central is a huge error."
A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be
"foolish," Ullman said, and it would be better to seek other ways to
influence its behavior. "I think most states are deterrable."
#
The rest of the article can be read at this link.
|
