roarksources

DOCUMENT 31–1: National Security of the United States Requires Preemptive War

Reading the American Past: Printed Page 319

DOCUMENT 31–1

National Security of the United States Requires Preemptive War

A year after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced a national security strategy that asserted the doctrine of preemptive war against possible threats to the United States and declared the goal of making the nation the world's greatest military power for the indefinite future. The excerpts that follow document the explanations for such policies.

The National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002

The United States of America is fighting a war against terrorists of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime or person or religion or ideology. The enemy is terrorism — premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents.

In many regions, legitimate grievances prevent the emergence of a lasting peace. Such grievances deserve to be, and must be, addressed within a political process. But no cause justifies terror. The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strike no deals with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.

The struggle against global terrorism is different from any other war in our history. It will be fought on many fronts against a particularly elusive enemy over an extended period of time. Progress will come through the persistent accumulation of successes — some seen, some unseen.

Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.

Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate. ...

We will disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations by:

direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
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 preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities.

We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:

using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism. ...

The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States — with our allies and friends — to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.

Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable.

But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous.

In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:

brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.

We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.

Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:

Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities — detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities — are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. ... It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given 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 today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.
In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.
In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.

For centuries, international 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. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat — most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction — weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.

We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. ...

The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. ...

It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military's highest priority is to defend the United States. ...

The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most strategically vital regions. However, the threats and enemies we must confront have changed, and so must our forces. A military structured to deter massive Cold War-era armies must be transformed to focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when a war might occur. ...

The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defense and in defense of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favors freedom. ...

The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy — whether a state or non-state actor — to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. ...

In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require.

From “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 2002.

Questions for Reading and Discussion

Question

s1XbNIJj+XhTndik/9qqaiJV48/mUlvDXt6fQo2AM54whbnAMWPWQjX0tT5pfGaHon/lWq4KRkFrT4F/qumG6loK+gcr+cg9TcTFHvzS1A8KastT6IHA29xdXGu64+s+ZxDSnxNbM2wTvQJcaguSEG7Z7F8ojtI1F7DeNowN8WFICySSyvh4GH3IOhxd9Q0gtmHe58SDURsmZZB0akvaGkys/riibu7fQKAHSgD6C1urtnATclsvPiF7MgEmit8UOfLe4zQlUqrwLrCOPrJtDRifNfg0Rc6VIh56/vLIYfEkZ/yu

Question

pfewBTZIJNGtVs6w5M5qblMmyENjMhPt5pkpR6CQ37GJpmOvxQzqlxLpuxvJtFN0dl2Af8b2av0bHr94DdMaOrbmm2WBP9xBFMATHFELRZuonZzurHLph1DqgA+9ejXHKOhhoOvshNHtNFe9eKOwbstM1dQmX9MlJ3DBLWnEaNlrohONv+NWceZdo8H2k+d6kdzJ73Z0Gf7W7QUCfWJMQpGo0zeuddrfkf1qyHO7uETmAA47GET0jdAYXQq5S1cZ0/W0hPMx/W8Bex8Dxgc+V2v1iklzZXIUK7df2O9mL80=

Question

xKcr0tP2vXolO1jce9nXDIVHwei/C54IUyEBNmGOzfYXsVSttkFdSe1U5FCbMkHT+yImpmmUrwtLpgsOodL6CyB4yf+VTlCFxLSfTKDMt437IeESd6ztVPMqg7Zt6b4rdntuqzXXmD5MHNjrcDaHub2QSZs5OvELP51mbEVJ/y3CMv29sHFQEhk+QfqGk9656DC4KOZ87OQQYosr/DRst6YaNyjXJdl0KSj3oGfrsO3ZtAYs9K2T7hVXxXj3PKVO4OwGcSjqwX9ITFCgHj0EaBWZtPEfZen2MwyrhaveabpB7BzxV8VyGrpvpNAaxyZB3DZZc+s3CLPIDh6H6qZk2u7Rc+Y=

Question

bqbkcyCz3EDremjDJQqDMCixiPDa/TDkaHmxOFWw2/eRrCddJiV1+lGoBmBZ5QO/5COBXbtH4qerI3zWE5OrFR9m3uIBsPL6OMJJCxjjVEhn5Y+QTcbRxaocZihafZz9ZFqY4IBTDnX/9bEtGwZKoWetcESXMaIx2IlvUxHV+/302Q7bLH+m1u2NsJjkwyOz+vkiarhCBek=

Question

UgTzf6dnhj5nItSklLkIHc4tSMbmKaEQfsgqYT7Z/24osn8hpTU++SG1p14hBJcshC0RoglAhCCCwvlfcrSg/6c7ciJzbaTMK2pl+dluhm/k5nxYOGV8Sb+fU2XmAysN2mWYAp/YmnDx2Lwq6FNWnTpdyEoFhd43dJ4px1mYlX31CcaaKdydepEKG5OY4fLj1e20DPPlcWqYvx6hVvupY7sgn6s=