Bruce Kuniholm: Bush's Strategic Vision for Better Security
Given the latest series of international terrorist attacks, the Bush administration's national security strategy is looking more and more sensible
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
The Bush administration has taken its share of slings and arrows
over its National Security Strategy. Many critics claimed the
strategy, released in mid-September, lacked a coherent vision for
the future safety of our nation. They focused almost entirely on
the strategy of pre-emption, which was characterized as bellicose,
arrogant and in the tradition of American exceptionalism.
But given the latest series of international
terrorist attacks, and the prospect of a catastrophic attack even
greater than that on the World Trade Center, the policy is looking
more and more sensible.
For the administration, the events of Sept. 11, 2001, made clear
the vulnerability of open, democratic societies to terrorists, to
those who harbor them and to tyrants or "rogue states" who seek
weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Such tyrants, or the states that
they lead, seek WMD not as weapons of last resort but as "weapons
of choice."
These developments have transformed the international security
environment into one that is more complex than that of the Cold War
-- one in which former Cold War foes are increasingly seen as
allies in a common cause. What they now support is "a balance of
power that favors freedom."
From the Bush administration's point of view, this new
environment requires a shift away from deterrence (a Cold War
concept that is less likely to work against rogue states such as
Iraq that seek WMD and won't work against terrorists). What is now
required is a strategy of pre-emption, particularly if the threat
the United States is trying to pre-empt is "imminent" -- a concept
drawn from international law that the administration believes must
be adapted to the capabilities and objectives of today's
adversaries.
The administration does not come to its National Security
Strategy lightly. It recognizes the need for alliances and the
support of the international community in pursuing its objectives,
and it underscores the fact that it takes its international
obligations seriously. The administration has, in fact, pursued
multilateral approaches in combating terror and the impending
threat posed by Saddam Hussein. That does not mean, however, that
the administration must shy away from its leadership
responsibilities and from the prospect, if necessary, of acting
alone (not for unilateral advantage, but to "create the balance of
power that favors human freedom").
The world awaits the outcome of Saddam's response to U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1441, adopted on Nov. 8, and the U.N.'s
assessment of that response. The administration, meanwhile, has
taken a major step in defining U.S. interests in the region and in
providing a shared vision of how to protect them. The National
Security Strategy elaborates on what can appropriately be called as
an expanded Bush Doctrine (although others would now characterize
that doctrine more simply as the articulation of a pre-emptive
strategy). The Bush Doctrine recognizes that if terrorism is to be
defeated, close cooperation between the United States and the
international community is important. But such cooperation is not
sufficient.
The underlying conditions that spawn terrorism (which are
manifest in the clash within Islam over the norms and direction of
modern civilization) must also be addressed. As a means to this
end, the administration clearly seeks to promote market economies
and to nurture those who promote democratic freedoms. Poverty,
while not the cause of terrorism, makes weak states vulnerable to
terrorism and must also be combated. The administration has
proposed a major increase in development assistance (the Millennium
Challenge Account) that can serve as a carrot to nations that
"govern justly," with an emphasis on health, education and an
increase in productivity growth -- assistance that will, in effect,
help build "the infrastructure of democracy."
The administration makes one of its top priorities the moral
imperative of "including all of the world's poor in an expanding
circle of development," and it declares that the United States,
with other countries, should double the size of the world's poorest
economies within a decade. The administration also recognizes the
necessity of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian problem in a
balanced approach consistent with its core principles.
Whether the administration will be able to implement this
ambitious agenda is open to question, but the vision is there and
deserves a lot more credit than it gets.
This article originally appeared in the Dec. 19 (Raleigh) News and Observer.