-Caveat Lector- http://news.findlaw.com/politics/s/20020821/bushiraqdoctrinedc.html
Wednesday, Aug. 21, 2002 Iraq Invasion Would Reshape U.S. Foreign Policy By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein would mark a radical break in U.S. foreign policy, from a Cold War doctrine of deterrence and containment to one of launching aggressive first strikes against potential future threats. "The United States has considered preemptive strikes in the past. There was much talk in the early days of the Cold War of a preemptive attack against the Soviet Union. However invading Iraq would be a radical break with the past if they actually went ahead and did it," said Michael Sherry, a historian at Northwestern University in Chicago. Whether or not President Bush orders an invasion, he has already laid the intellectual groundwork for what he called a doctrine of "preemption" in a speech at West Point on June 1, a doctrine that grew out of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon last Sept. 11. Bush argued that the spread of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology, gave even weak states and small groups not connected to a country the power to inflict catastrophic damage on major powers. Deterrence, he said, meant nothing against "shadowy terrorist networks" while containment would not work against "unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction." "Our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives," Bush declared. According to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, such an approach would challenge the international system established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which laid down the principal of nonintervention in the domestic affairs of other states, although that principal has perhaps been more often honored in the breach than in the observance. More immediately, it would run counter to modern international law, which sanctions the use of force in self-defense only against actual and not potential threats. Still, Kissinger has said in recent newspaper articles and interviews, an attack against Iraq could be justified because the threat of Saddam developing biological or nuclear weapons and then either using them himself or handing them to a terrorist group was overwhelming. But opposition to the doctrine of preemption is also growing. Sen. Charles Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, said it would go against two centuries of U.S. foreign policy practice and could tempt other nations to follow the U.S. example by striking out against their enemies without provocation. "India hitting Pakistan, maybe Israel striking out," Hagel said Sunday on a television news program. "A lot of uncontrollable and unintended consequences could well flow from this." But Purdue University political scientist Keith Shimko said it was naive to assume that other nations would launch wars just because the United States did so. "I don't worry about that too much. Nations do what they perceive as being in their interests, weighing the costs and benefits, and then find arguments to justify it," he said. Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Bush's father during the 1991 Gulf War, predicted that the United States would lose most of its allies in Bush's "war against terrorism" if it launched a pre-emptive strike against Iraq and that it would likely prompt Saddam to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possessed against Israel. 'MIDEAST ARMAGEDDON' "This time ... he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Scowcroft said in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last week. In fact, the kind of attack Bush is contemplating is more precisely described as a "preventive" rather than a "preemptive" strike. The distinction matters, said Robert Gray, North American editor of Defense and Security Analysis magazine. He explained that a preemptive strike, like that launched by Israel against Egypt in 1967, is intended to forestall an immediate threat. But no such threat to the United States can be demonstrated from Iraq. A preventive strike, such as the Israeli air raid that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, is intended to avert what may be a more theoretical longer-term danger. At the time, the United States vigorously condemned the Israeli raid, as did its allies. Now, it is contemplating a far more massive military action, not simply to knock out a single installation but to change an entire society. "The breadth of this doctrine is breathtaking, going far beyond any claim made by previous American governments. None of our military interventions since World War II has required such a wrenching revision of international law," Yale University law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote in The Washington Post on Sunday. Some disagree, saying that the United States has often intervened covertly in other countries to bring down governments it found objectionable. The only difference this time would be the scale of the intervention. For example, in 1953 and 1954, the CIA engineered coups in Iran and Guatemala to expel popular leaders. The effects of those actions are arguably still being felt by the populations of those nations today. "Meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, mainly but not exclusively in Latin America, is deeply ingrained in American history. It has been a record of great arrogance but not of great success for the fates of those countries," said American University historian Allan Lichtman. -------- Copyright © Reuters 2002. All rights reserved. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
