[Nasional-e] U.S. first-strike doctrine carries its own dangers

[Ambon]

 NEWS ANALYSIS U.S. first-strike doctrine carries its own dangers
 Peter Slevin The Washington Post Monday, September 23, 2002



WASHINGTON The Bush administration's declared willingness to attack
potential enemies before they strike represents a new chapter in strategic
doctrine that heightens the danger of unintended consequences and raises the
pressure on the U.S. national security system to get things right the first
time, analysts say. Made official on Friday, the dramatic change in the
decades-old strategy of deterrence and containment puts an option into play
that could be effective against rogue states, according to experts. But they
warned that the shift also risks establishing a precedent for countries
whose motives or timing the U.S. government may not support.
.
Just as Russia, India and Israel cited last year's U.S.-led assault on
Afghanistan to justify aggressive measures against opponents they labeled
terrorists, a preemptive attack by the United States on another country
could prompt other governments to bypass the United Nations and launch a
unilateral strike against a foe.
.
"What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," said Adam Roberts of
Oxford University. "I have to say it puzzles America's allies that that
danger doesn't seem to be fully grasped."
.
Preemptive military action would require the administration to draw early
conclusions about a rival nation's capabilities and intent, placing a
premium on accurate intelligence and judgment. It would necessitate a clear
public case to avoid sharpening the perception that the United States plays
by its own rules in foreign affairs. In addition, said Harlan Ullman, a
defense analyst, the military would have to strike with precision because
the danger of retaliation would be great. "You don't get a second chance,"
said Ullman, author of "Unfinished Business - Afghanistan, the Middle East
and Beyond," an assessment of international threats. "Preemption assumes a
quick, decisive, relatively inexpensive victory. If that does not happen,
you may not have the necessary logic and rationale for a long-term
campaign."
.
President George W. Bush laid out his argument for beating an enemy to the
punch in his National Security Strategy, released Friday. He declared the
shift, part of a policy designed to maintain a "balance of power that favors
human freedom," at the same time the administration has announced its
intention to disarm Iraq - unilaterally and by force, if necessary. For the
president's national security team, the strategy document makes explicit a
tactic that every administration has contemplated in contingency planning
but few have applied. Officials contend that aggressive "anticipatory
action" is a weapon more suited to threats posed by terrorists and
terror-sponsoring states than the more passive Cold War doctrines of
deterrence and containment.
.
No longer is the military power of the United States sufficient to dissuade
opponents from attacking American interests, the thinking goes. And no
longer, by implication, is the Bush team confident that U.S. interests can
be defended properly by collective action, whether sponsored by the
19-nation NATO alliance or the cumbersome machinery of the United Nations
Security Council.
.
"The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to
the United States or our allies and friends," the National Security Strategy
asserts. "The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and
the cause just."
.
Yet, to some observers, the very act of one country preemptively attacking
another carries troubling echoes of vigilante justice when much of the world
is working toward common understandings about the use of force.
.
"It's a violation of the UN Charter. It's a violation of the NATO charter,"
said Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy at
the National War College. If preemption as a policy takes hold, Gardiner
asked, "where does it stop?"
.
On Sept. 11, just as Bush was preparing to tell world leaders that the Unite
d States would act alone against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein if no one else
would, President Vladimir Putin off Russia announced a determination of his
own. He said Russia would be justified in attacking Chechen rebels who
sought refuge in neighboring Georgia. The Bush administration objected.
.
Ullman worries that countries fearing a preemptive strike would develop
stronger deterrent weapons. He gave Iran as an example, saying that a Tehran
government might hurry its nuclear weapons program after seeing the United
States lead an assault on Iraq. Others have asked whether Pakistan, feeling
pushed into desperation by India and its significant superiority in
conventional forces, would feel freer to use nuclear weapons as a first
strike.
.
If preemption became widely acceptable, according to some military experts,
one country fearing an assault might attack its rival first, escalating a
conflict that might have been resolved without force. Or a nation under a
sudden attack might choose to deploy chemical, biological or nuclear weapons
it otherwise might not use. Robert Kagan, a Brussels-based analyst, believes
the dangers of the new doctrine can be overstated. "I don't think we're
moving into the age of preemption," he said. "I don't think other nations
are being restrained from taking action by the fact that no one has set the
precedent of preemption. That's not why China is not attacking Taiwan.
That's not why India is not attacking Pakistan."
.
"They're making calculations based on their own national interest and the
relationships of international power," he said.
.
Secretary of State Colin Powell pushed aside the potential for trouble last
week when he explained preemption's logic. "When we see something coming at
us," he said, "we should take action to stop it."