The doctrine of preemptive actions

Did the tragic events of 9/11 provoke  the present aggressive stance of
the US ?

Most people might think so, but there is considerable documentary
evidence,  showing that such a strategy was proposed by conservative
Republicans long before these events and that 9/11 only provided a
heaven-sent opportunity to implement the plan for “a new American
Century”.

It was conceived by a group of conservative politicians on  June 3,
1997, who declared:
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have
criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its
power,.but we  cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global
leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America
has a vital role in maintaining peace and  security in Europe, Asia, and
the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges
to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should
have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises
emerge, and  to meet threats before they become dire. The history of
this century should have  taught us to embrace the cause of American
leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their
consequences for  today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry
out our global  responsibilities today and modernize our
  armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge
regimes hostile  to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in
preserving and  extending an international order friendly to our
  security, our prosperity, and our  principles.

Such a policy of military strength and moral clarity is necessary if the
United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to
ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush,  Dick Cheney,
Eliot A.  Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron
Friedberg, Francis  Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald
Kagan,L Zalmay Khalilzad, I.  Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz,, Dan
Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald
Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul  Wolfowitz

On these premises the doctrine  of Preventive Actions was  formulated,
which has been explained in detail by President George W. Bush:
"If we wait for threats to fully materialize we have waited too long. We
must take the battle to the enemy . . . to confront the worst threats
before they emerge"
"The US should be prepared to use force if necessary to prevent the
spread of  nuclear weapons,... to maintain US military primacy and
discourage the emergence  of a rival superpower".
Defense Planning Guidance emphasizes the need for taking "anticipatory
action" even  if there was some uncertainty regarding the enemy's plans.

Such a doctrine has the following logical consequences:

First an unending series of smaller wars against an enlarged Axis of
Evil and then as a  final conclusion:
an atomic war to prevent China or a Russian-Chinese alliance from
becoming a credible rival.

It would also mean the undermining the authority of the United Nations,
which has been laboriously built up during the last half-century and is
our best and only hope to replace the Law of the Jungle with a System of
Collective Security,

Are there any concrete reasons for a war against Iraq ?
In the words of some less radical conservatives:
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbors, and
none to the  US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if
he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel
or America could hurl at him at five  minutes' notice.. What is at stake
is America's need to demonstrate its military power  to all of us -to
Europe, Russia and China,

Would it prevent future terrorist attacks against the US homeland ?

It seems to be obvious that such goals cannot be  accomplished through
pre-emptive actions against countries offering asylum to terrorists or
trying to develop weapons of mass destruction and/or the means of
delivering  them. It is much more likely that The Exact Opposite would
happen, since any such unprovoked attack would only increase the hatred
against the US and multiply the number of fanatics, willing to give up
their lives in order to inflict harm to what they consider “the great
Satan”.
This effect can be observed almost daily in the Middle  East conflict
between Israel  and the Palestinians. In spite of having almost absolute
control over the Westbank and the Gaza  strip -a very small territory-,
Israel’s harsh measures to suppress the 2nd Intifada only result in more
volunteers coming forward for new suicide attacks.
To prevent similar terrorist actions on its homeland, the US would have
to try controlling immensely vaster territories, with great facilities
for hiding and /or for obtaining the material means for carrying out
such attacks; in other words  It is a Hopeless Task..

What might therefore be the real aims to be achieved by the  “New
American Century “?

To find out, one should apply the principle of Cui Bono ? (meaning who
gets the benefit), used in jurisprudence to try finding out who might
have committed a crime, if there are no known culprits.
In the case of this doctrine there are 2 such groups:
1. The Present Administration which has implemented a lot of unpopular
and counterproductive economic and social policies and which came to
power - not through a majority of votes - but through the verdict of the
Supreme Court, where  Republicans DID hold a majority. Therefore it
needs an Unending War in  order to be able to consolidate and perpetuate
its hold on power indefinitely.
2. The Military-Industrial Complex, which obtained  immensely increased
orders for all kinds of weaponry and expect to get many more in the
foreseeable  future.

Can the “New American Century “ be compared with  Hitler’s dream of a
1000 year Reich ?
Both were conceived with the goal of absolute world domination and both
obtained  the needed authority with similar means.
Hitler was granted special powers after the Reichstag-fire and used them
to achieve  the absolute control of the Nazi government over most
aspects of the German civilian  society.
President Bush asked for and received somewhat les inclusive powers
through the Homeland security act and has already started to use them
for introducing profound changes in the character of US society.

Naturally  there are still some great differences; but existing
similarities justify the  most serious concerns of freedom-loving people
anywhere. Many millions had to die  in order to bring about the fiery
downfall of the 1000 year Reich after only 13 years.
Hopefully the many millions of peaceful resisters can soon achieve a
less dramatic end to the new American Century !

Santiago February 1st,  Paul Riesz