Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (6937)	9/21/2002 8:43:33 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Use and abuse of US power Financial Times Editorial Comment Published: September 21 2002 5:00 George W.Bush has now joined the select band of US presidents with a doctrine to his name.The 33-page "national security strategy" published yesterday outlines the most comprehensive framework for US foreign and security policy since the cold war ended more than a decade ago. It ranges from US relations with other leading powers and approaches to crisis hot-spots around the world, to trade and aid issues. But if it comes to be remembered as a milestone in US foreign policy, it will be for its assertion of "a distinctly American internationalism". This means, in the military field, the US will work with allies where possible but will, if necessary, strike unilaterally and pre-emptively against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. Some in the Bush administration are likening the historic import of its new doctrine to that of President Harry Truman in 1947, which laid out the basic US strategy of containing the Soviet Union for what turned out to be 43 years. The Bush doctrine may not have so long a shelf-life. But the new strategy does have the merit of putting the recent belligerent talk of Washington's right to wage pre-emptive war on its foes into a broader framework. This shows that the Bush administration has not subordinated its entire foreign policy to the fight against terrorism, because all the world's problems cannot be reduced to terrorism. And the framework still contains some of the internationalist principles Republicans espoused before they came into office. The latter chiefly criticised President Bill Clinton for being ineffectual in promoting security and free trade abroad; and the Bush administration has achievements in trade, aid and relations with Russia to its credit. More foreign bases Yet the core of the new doctrine is military. Its premise is that the US is, and will stay, by far the strongest military power and that this military supremacy will shift other countries from competition to co-operation with it. There may in future be more GIs, or at least US special and intelligence forces, around the world. As well as giving the State Department more resources, the Bush administration says it may require more, not fewer, foreign military bases. This, however, points to a practical contradiction in the Bush doctrine. It states that "while the US will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary". That is precisely what Mr Bush is doing now by seeking congressional approval for a unilateral strike on Iraq while he is still pressing for United Nations approval of such an attack. But military strikes cannot be entirely unilateral if they have to be launched from someone else's territory. Theory, as enunciated in the Bush doctrine, will conflict with practice in other areas. "To further freedom's triumph" in Afghanistan, the US has had to cosy up to some unsavoury regimes in central Asia. Free trade, promoted in the doctrine to "a moral value", has been diminished by Mr Bush's steel import curbs. Nato's role Similar contradictions exist in certain of the US's key regional policies. The new doctrine gives Nato an important role - but only if US allies in Europe make changes, including being willing and able to "field, at short notice, highly mobile, specially trained forces" to fight terrorism. Only if Nato can do this will it, according to the new doctrine, stay as central to US security as it was during the cold war. In the Middle East, the Bush doctrine's prescription for the Palestinians is in line with its policy. A Palestinian government rejecting terror and corruption would win US support for an eventual Palestinian state. But the call for Israel to stop settlements in the occupied territories is not reflected in current US policy. In south Asia, the doctrine appears too trusting of India and Pakistan, two new nuclear powers that refuse to sign any non- proliferation treaty. In the end, much of the judgment on the Bush doctrine must rest with the American people themselves. And the first test of this will come over Iraq. At the political level, there is little doubt that Mr Bush's belligerent approach towards Baghdad now commands broad support. Congressional Democrats appear inclined to give Mr Bush the authorisation for unilateral action that he is seeking. But many congressmen will be facing the voters in November and the public mood appears considerably less hawkish than that on Capitol Hill. Mr Bush has not been able to come up with any hard evidence tying Iraq to the events of September 11 last year. In the absence of that, or of proof of aclear and present danger from Baghdad, many Americans appear to feel that the case for a pre-emptive strike has not been made. news.ft.com