Illegal "Preemptive War" Doctrine To Be Reaffirmed By Bush

The doctrine of "preemptive war", which was declared illegal by the International War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, is being explicitly reaffirmed today by President Bush in the 2006 version of the U.S. national security strategy.

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.

The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficient to justify preventive war.

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.

The comparison here to "the bull running amok in the china shop" comes to mind, but one would suppose that the bull did not enter the place of business on the basis of faulty intelligence.

And did not later state that it has the right to do it again as a matter of strategic policy.

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."

Ironically, despite embracing a policy that is illegal under international law (to which the U.S. is a signatory), the administration is putting this policy into effect in order to comply with a U.S. law that it has been flaunting:

The strategy has no legal force of its own but serves as a guidepost for agencies and officials drawing up policies in a range of military, diplomatic and other arenas. Although a 1986 law requires that the strategy be revised annually, this is the first new version since 2002. "I don't think it's a change in strategy," Hadley said in an interview. "It's an updating of where we are with the strategy, given the time that's passed and the events that have occurred."

But the new version of the strategy underscores in a more thematic way Bush's desire to make the spread of democracy the fundamental underpinning of U.S. foreign policy, as he expressed in his second inaugural address last year. The opening words of the strategy, in fact, are lifted from that speech: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

"Spreading democracy" looks like hegemonic expansionism to the rest of the world.

The freedom hatin' foreigners must have it wrong.

At the same time, it acknowledges that "elections alone are not enough" and sometimes lead to undesirable results. "These principles are tested by the victory of Hamas candidates in the recent elections in the Palestinian territories," the strategy says, referring to the radical group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States.

There is the old saying "elections do not make a democracy." We used to trot out that old warhorse to criticize elections in communist countries. Someone decided to dust it off and give it another try.

The current crop of bogeymen make their expected appearance:

(T)he strategy singles out seven nations as prime examples of "despotic systems" -- North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe. Iran and North Korea receive particular attention because of their nuclear programs, and the strategy vows in both cases "to take all necessary measures" to protect the United States against them.

Who is "first among equals"?

Correct, just as you guessed:

"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," the document says, echoing a statement made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week. It recommits to efforts with European allies to pressure Tehran to give up any aspirations of nuclear weapons, then adds ominously: "This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided."

"It's not like we didn't warn you", it says.

The time-tested enemies are not ignored either:

The strategy offers a much more skeptical view of Russia than in 2002, when the glow of Bush's friendship with President Vladimir Putin was still bright.

"Recent trends regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions," it says. "We will work to try to persuade the Russian Government to move forward, not backward, along freedom's path."

It also warns China that "it must act as a responsible stakeholder that fulfills its obligations" and guarantee political freedom as well as economic freedom. "Our strategy," the document says, "seeks to encourage China to make the right strategic choices for its people, while we hedge against other possibilities."

All in all, the 2006 edition of the national security strategy is a reckless, ignorant manifesto which the United States would subject to the strictest scrutiny if issued by any of the nations on the shit list.

Stating a policy of preemptive war is questionable enough, but to habitually act on it will result in the U.S. being placed in an even higher position than currently situated on the register of historical miscreants.