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 (6957)	9/21/2002 7:45:56 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Dramatic U.S. policy shift: First strike, not deterrence By Sumana Chatterjee Knight Ridder Newspapers Saturday, September 21, 2002 - 12:22 a.m. Pacific -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON — The Bush administration yesterday declared a muscular new foreign policy and military strategy that pit the world's sole superpower against a small number of terrorists and hostile countries armed with weapons of mass destruction. In a world where terrorists are the main enemy, the United States will use its unequaled strength and act alone, if necessary, to make sure that an enemy never can deliver a devastating blow, according to the new National Security Review, a document that each president submits to Congress every four years. Bush's National Security Review marks a radical departure from the strategic concepts of containment and deterrence that have guided foreign policy since the end of the World War II. Some scholars said the new strategy amounted to an elaborate justification for attacking another nation in the absence of an immediate threat, amounting to a preventive war that would violate international law. "History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act," the 35-page administration review says. "In the new world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action." "The distinctly American internationalism recognizes that as the strongest nation in the world, the United States has a responsibility to sponsor a balance of power that favors freedom," said a senior Bush administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity. One concept in the doctrine is to ensure that America has no competitors for superpower status. "We will not allow an adversarial military power to arise," the administration official said. But the official conceded that countries that share American interests would be asked to help shoulder the military burdens to protect and expand those freedoms. "In fact, we would welcome states that share our values, for instance the Europeans, devoting more resources to the military side, so that there is more ability to share some of the security burdens in pressing for a balance of power that favors freedom." In spelling out the doctrine, first outlined by the president at West Point, N.Y., in June, the Bush administration also promises it will not use American power as a "pretext for aggression" and that it will try to spread American values of freedom, open markets and trade, and human rights. Bush is seeking "a balance of power that favors freedom," the senior administration official said. "We are not going to change all countries into democracies overnight," the official acknowledged, but said bringing about democracy would be the goal. The administration is throwing out Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment, saying it will rely instead on "pre-emptive war" as a means of destroying or disrupting terrorists and rogue states, said Richard Shultz, an international security professor at Tufts University. "Pre-emption is not a new concept. Anticipatory self-defense is not a new concept," the senior administration official said. "You have to explain why it would be common sense if we sit and wait to be attacked if we can do something about the threat before we are attacked." But the Bush administration has used the term "pre-emptive war" and anticipatory self-defense in its doctrine to shroud what essentially is preventative war, said John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor. Under international law, he said, it is acceptable to conduct a pre-emptive war when there is direct evidence of an imminent attack. But according to the doctrine, the Bush administration wants to act when it perceives a threat, even before clear evidence of an imminent attack. Mearsheimer said that would amount to preventative war, which is not accepted under international law. Mearsheimer said the U.S. had contemplated launching preventative war against Russia and China during the Cold War. The difference is that the Bush administration has announced that it is willing to act unilaterally and without direct provocation, he said. "The question is: Does it make good sense to stand on the rooftop and announce that? The answer is no," Mearsheimer said. "It alienates states across the globe. They begin to think long and hard about whether they will be a victim" of the American military reach. _______________________________ Information from The Associated Press is included in this report. Copyright © 2002 The Seattle Times Company seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (6957)	9/21/2002 1:15:07 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

American Historians Speak Out 'Consulting' Congress On Iraq Is Not Enough Published: Sep 16 2002 tompaine.com Joyce Appleby is Professor of History Emerita and Ellen Carol DuBois is Professor of History at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). The nation stands on the verge of war with Iraq and American historians are speaking out. Consultation with Congress is not enough. A congressional resolution authorizing military action falls short. We believe the Constitution is clear: Congress must debate and vote on whether to declare war on Iraq. Over 1,200 historians have signed our petition to that effect. We believe the president is flouting the Constitution, which explicitly gives to Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. "We ask our senators and representatives to do this," the petition reads in part, "because Congress has not asserted its authority to declare war for over half a century, leaving the president solely in control of war powers to the detriment of our democracy and in clear violation of the Constitution." At noon today, Sept. 17, Constitution Day, we are delivering our petition to Congress. Historians who have signed the petition include: Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, Jack Rakove of Stanford University, David Beito of the University of Alabama, David DeLeon of Howard University, Melani McAlister of George Washington University, David Levering Lewis of Rutgers University; and Teresa Meade of Union College. Read the complete text of the petion and the full list of signers at HistoryNewsNetwork.org. The Constitution is not a document to be selectively observed. Its provisions support each other. The balancing of powers was the device the Founding Fathers hit upon to prevent the tyranny of concentrated power. In writing Article I, Section 8, they balanced the president's power as commander-in-chief against the authority of the people's representatives to determine whether or not to commit the nation to war. There is no ambiguity of original intent here. After weeks of resistance, the president finally said he would consult Congress and seek a resolution authorizing the use of military force. The announcement quieted many critics and media commentators, but it should not have. It is a deceptive distraction. A resolution might be only a vaguely worded affirmation of the dangers of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. By contrast, a vote on a declaration of war would involve Congress in a sober assessment of the costs, risks, and wisdom of a preemptive strike at Iraq. Inadequate as mere consultation is, President Bush has undercut even its limited value by telling audiences he doesn't expect any debate on Capital Hill to alter his position. This imperious response does not sound like a man who once swore to uphold the Constitution. A preemptive attack on Iraq is not like invading Grenada or Panama. The stakes are much higher, the risks far more serious for the nation and the world. That's why Congress must debate whether or not to declare war and then take a vote. A resolution that is less than a declaration of war might satisfy those people who think Congress should have a say in the matter, but it would not satisfy the Constitution. Either Saddam Hussein has pursued a path that requires us to wage war against him, or he has not. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is not about police actions or interventions -- it is about war. Congress must debate whether to declare war and then take a vote. The last time a president asked Congress to declare war was on December 8, 1941, the day after the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Presidents since then have preferred the flexibility of undeclared wars, proxy wars, covert wars, and United Nations action -- a trend that has eroded congressional authority. While the clandestine nature of Cold War operations helps explain this, it in no way justifies a further expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. Who remembers America's past ways of conducting foreign policy? Historians do. We cultivate the memory of our nation's principles and practices. In this spirit, over 1,200 American historians have turned to an old tradition -- petitioning Congress for redress of grievances. We hope to call members of Congress back to their duty and contribute to a rejuvenation of civic culture in this, the oldest democracy on Earth. We stand at a historical crossroads -- the nation will either return to its constitutional provision for making war or continue the baleful practices of the Cold War and its for-us-or-against-us mentality, its imperial presidency, and the suppression of dissent. At the very time that people around the world are restive under despotic governments, we should show them how democracy works. Whatever position individual Americans may take on a preemptive attack on Iraq -- for, against, or undecided -- they should urge their Congressional representatives to muster the facts and arguments and bring them to bear in open debate: Should we or should we not declare war on Iraq? If we must consider the untested doctrine of preemptive war, let us rely on the well-tested Constitution to guide our decision. That course alone can give legitimacy to the initiative. * * * TomPaine.com Independent, Commercial-free Public Affairs Reporting and Commentary