I found the document troubling in few a ways. This is from the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/international/20STRA.html What part of our constitution or declaration of independence says we have to be the most powerful nation in the world, and that we can intervene militarily if another nation starts to catch up. Where does that mandate or right come from? Why is Bush able to dictate who can have military power and who can't? I understand if someone has signed and broken a treaty or resolutions, because there are other reasons involved. But this seems like if the President feels that anyone, regardless of past offenses or not, gets a little too big of a military then he can invade them and disable their armed forces. Does that sound a little bit like a mad conqueror shouting, 'I will rule the world! Bwahahaha,' to anyone else? I'm very against interfering in other nations sovereignty so I might be over sensative, but I'm eager to here what other people have to say.
Maybe we're feeling the crunch that foreign powers are begining to rival us economically (EU) and could surpass us millitarily in the future (China)? Or it could be some hawkish determination in his cabinet that 9/11 helped catalyze...
Well, it does sound really weird to me. But if Bush tried to say that it would come out like: "I will be ruling and thinking that I rule ... the ruler of the hemisphere, I mean all three hemispheres." But yea, I completely agree with you about your point re the constitution. I missed the fine print that says "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and absolute military supremacy over the planet." But I was lazy in high school. edit: oh, good evening again, Mr. Ashcroft. How are you, sir?
man...check the sky..it might be falling... 1. where in the Constitution does it say the US can't be the most powerful nation in the world?? and how would that be even remotely relevant since other countries aren't governed by the US Constitution 2. don't act like he's invading france here...we're talking about madmen who have shown unprovoked aggression and are seeking WMD... 3. madman seeking world domination...yeah...that's it...of course he can serve as president for, at the most, 6 more years...so maybe not...any administration can revisit this policy...you are drastically blowing this out of proportion 4. i don't see this policy as drastically different than how any president has handled foreign affairs in the last 20 years...bush is just saying it...where was this protest when Clinton was shooting cruise missiles into Iraq in 2000???
I see your point, and it could turn out to be nothing, but when it comes to this kind of thing, I think it goes to far. At some ways it's about what could happen. It's too general. It's fine if we are the most powerful nation. That isn't the problem. The problem is taking military action if anyone decides to build their own military. 2. don't act like he's invading france here...we're talking about madmen who have shown unprovoked aggression and are seeking WMD... I don't mean to say we are, but we could. If France started catching up militarily by this doctrine we would attack it. This policy lays out a very dangerous path. It discards proliferation treaties that help reduce nuclear arms world wide, and instead encourages more production. That is very true. Hopefully it will be changed. But in the meantime, it's still a possible danger. I was against that bombing by Clinton. Though it was targeted, and in response to borken UN resolutions. It was not an Invasion with very little worldwide support. Most importantly it wasn't a govt. philosophy that could be used anywhere in the world that Bush felt was gaining too much of a military.
it is not just about "gaining militarily"... Great Britain has quite a military...we're not attacking them...they have not shown themselves to be overtly aggressive...they have not harbored or supported terrorism...the distinction is huge...you're so blowing this out of proportion...France could be next??? come on, Franchise...you and this article are taking this policy to a place it was never intended to visit. and how does this encourage proliferation???...if it is as you say, proliferation means you get your ass pounded by the United States before you get there...not exactly encouragement... Clinton's was different because it was targetted....come on!!!!!!!! this is absurd...we're talking about wiping out weapons of mass destruction and where they're produced..that's pretty damn targetted. was not an invasion with little world support?? i don't think "the world" was even consulted...no one knew it was coming, if i remember right...and why wasn't it a govt philosophy...so it wasn't proclaimed...but it was certainly carried out in the same way...Clinton felt Saddam was in violation of UN mandates which prohibited him from developing certain weapons...Clinton was right....Clinton struck him with cruise weapons in an effort to keep Saddam from building those weapons...difference, please.
In the part of the doctrine that I quoted there is nothing that said the other country has to be in support of terrorism or overtly aggressive. The doctrine says the president has no intention of letting ANY foreign country of catching up. Whether that was the intent of the doctrine or not I don't know, but that's how it's worded. If it's just poor wording, and the doctrine meant of any country that's overtly aggresive or in league with terrorism then it should be written that way. It encourages proliferation on our part. Instead of treaties where both countries agree to destroy their weapons, this doctrine encourages the U.S. to increase it's arsenal. The inspectors going in and destroying what weapons and weapon producing capabilites Iraq posseses would be targeted. Taking over the entire nation is not targeted. I'm not against enforcing the UN resolutions, which is why I thought Bush's speech to the UN was great. If those inspectors are blocked, or any attempt of harm comes to them, then not only will I support an invasion, but so will most of the UN. Bush's speech was great, but then after the UN was starting to come around to Bush's side, and there was a chance to actually call Saddam's bluff, Bush seemed to hype the war talk, so that it seems he doesn't care about getting inspectors back in again etc. If the inspections and subsequent destructions of weapons and weapon capabilities fail, then the invasion would happen anyway. But I'm not even talking about just Iraq so much. Because of the problem mentioned above his doctrine isn't limited to just Iraq. That's where the biggest problem for me is. If it was limited to just Iraq, I might disagree with it, or possibly not. The problem that it creates for me is that it isn't limited. The President could at any time declare another nation's military is just too big, and then take military action. I'm not saying he definitely will, but for him to have that kind of power doesn't seem safe, or balanced as far as the division of powers go.
there is nothing in here that any president could have done in years past...there is nothing in here that some presidents haven't already done...
I don't think any president had a written mandate, that said military force against any country that comes close in military might to the U.S. would be a proper course of action. There were Roman emperors who and certain Greek City States that acted that way. If I'm wrong, and I'm missing a president, that mandated the U.S. maintain military superiority over everyone else the world, just let me know. But as far as I know there hasn't been anyone but Bush.
Seriously, what would your reaction have been if that same statement had been made by any other nation, now, or in the past? If during the Cold War the USSR had stated that it's goal was to be the most powerful nation in the world, and that they would not allow any other nation to become equal with them, would you not have seen that as another sign that they were an evil empire? Would that statement be out of place in a speech by Hitler? If China now stated it's objective was to be the most powerful nation in the world, without rival, would you see that as a threat to world peace? Well, that's how other nations are feeling about this...
For the record... The US Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. It does not qualify under what circumstances they can envoke the power. It is a blanket power, and it can be exercised whenever they feel like it. Tomorrow they could decide to attack Canada because they have 2 of our baseball teams...or something equally as ludicrous.
The difference is that Congress doesn't have written policy that says it won't allow any nation other than the U.S. to have Major league baseball teams, and that it may declare of other countries have them.
You specifically asked which part of the Constitution says we can intervene militarily if a country starts to "catch up." I answered that question. The Constitution gives the government (in Congress) the power to do so for any reason or no reason at all...another country amassing military might is not excluded.
Maybe not such a bad thing to be already in place especially when a Democrat takes the White House back in 2004. Then there won't be so much hollering when Hill or Joe decides to bomb the other "Axis of Evil" members.....
Seriously, what would your reaction have been if that same statement had been made by any other nation, now, or in the past? If during the Cold War the USSR had stated that it's goal was to be the most powerful nation in the world, and that they would not allow any other nation to become equal with them, would you not have seen that as another sign that they were an evil empire? We're better and bigger than everyone else, so the rules don't apply to us. And then people wonder why other countries have issues with us...
I'm on the same page, Major, but I think it's more like: We're better, smarter, and stronger than everyone else, so WE write the rules and change them as we see fit. "Got a problem with that? Huh? Hey, nation over there, are you looking at me funny?" (Whoa. Disturbing thought: Rumsfield with a mullet and, say, a skull tat on his shoulder. ) Well, that's how I would see it if I was a citizen of another nation. FB, I'm afraid this is not so unprecendented though. Perhaps the language, but not the actions. Thoreau quit paying his taxes in part because he saw US agression against Mexico as baseless land-grabbing, which it was, God bless it. And MM, I don't think the UK is a good example of anything but our stooge. They are favored by us right now because they do EXACTLY as they are told. They're just a flunky, so the fact that we don't threaten them is meaningless.
Good Article on US "Hegemony" *****. Political scientists are calling the present era one of U.S. hegemony. Not just a superpower, America is the global hegemon. Others, especially in Europe, have a starker portrayal of the new U.S. global reach, characterizing the U.S. as an empire. Although there is widespread agreement that the U.S. has adopted a more unilateral or even imperial posture in global affairs, there is some disagreement about the implications for international stability. The zealots of the Christian Right and pro-Likud neoconservatives in and outside the administration of President George W. Bush say that the U.S. is fighting the good fight for the benefit of all peaceable peoples. But the growing consensus among foreign policy thinkers is that the more Washington indulges its unilateralist and military instincts, the faster its present hyperpower status will erode. While the time when lesser powers could form the kind of coalition that could seriously challenge U.S. military power remains very distant, Washington's ability to work its will on the rest of the world is likely to diminish steadily, particularly if it keeps rejecting the advice and counsel of its closest traditional allies, who are more multilaterally inclined. "The success of U.S. primacy will depend not just on our military and economic might, but also on the soft power of our culture and values, and on policies that make others feel they have been consulted and their interests have been taken into account," says Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and one of the leading critics of Bush's unilateralist trajectory. "The administration needs to be careful about denigrating alliances and institutions that may be helpful in the future," says Steven Miller, editor-in-chief of International Security, the most influential U.S. journal on global security issues. Although Washington's tendency toward unilateralism was already growing under former President Bill Clinton, in part due to pressure from a rightwing Republican-controlled Congress, the pace has accelerated dramatically since Bush took over 18 months ago, and particularly since he launched his war against terrorism after the attacks of last September. Early last year already, his administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol to prevent global warming. Since September 11, it has withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, launched construction of a national missile defense system, and undermined other international arms-control negotiations. More recently, it has reaffirmed its determination to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein; approved a Nuclear Posture Review that targets five non-nuclear states for possible nuclear attack in total violation of previous U.S. commitments; proclaimed a new strategic doctrine of preemption against suspected enemy states; and "unsigned" the Rome Statute creating an International Criminal Court (ICC) to try war crimes and genocide. It is now threatening to pull out all U.S. nationals from UN peacekeeping operations if the Security Council does not give them blanket exemption from the Court's jurisdiction. "The administration's worldview particularly favors the unilateral exercise of power," says Miller. "There is a sense that U.S. policy is operating on the premise: 'What choice (does the rest of the world) have?' We've created a set of rules and one of the rules is that rules are for others." Not only is this implied in the administration's actions on Kyoto and the ICC; it is explicit with respect to Washington's attitude toward international arms-control regimes that would limit its own freedom of action. "America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless," Bush declared in a little noticed but highly significant passage during his recent address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. This kind of imperial muscle flexing evokes exultation among the champions of U.S. dominance, such as Charles Krauthammer, a neoconservative columnist close to the hard-line civilian leadership in the Pentagon. "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire'," he said in April. "The fact is no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically, and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman Empire." Most historians of international politics agree with his assessment. Yale Professor Paul Kennedy, the most prominent exponent of the "declinist" school of U.S. power 15 years ago, now admits that Washington has made a remarkable recovery from that time. Its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2000 reached 31% of global GDP, up by almost 10% over mid-1980s levels; 46% of the world's Internet traffic originated in the United States; and almost two-thirds of the world's Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences and economics for the past few decades have been U.S. citizens. At almost 400 billion dollars, the U.S. military budget will account for 45% of the world's total military expenditures next year, or just about as much as all of its NATO allies, plus Russia and China, combined. "I've gone back in world history and never seen anything like it," says Kennedy, who notes that one U.S. Navy aircraft carrier task force--of which seven are deployed around the world at all times--costs the equivalent of about two-thirds of Italy's total annual military budget. Moreover, Washington is currently sustaining that budget at the relatively comfortable level of only 3% of total U.S. GDP, half of the defense burden on the U.S. economy during most of the cold war. Yet Kennedy remains skeptical of U.S. power today, particularly of its relevance. He says the major security challenges of the coming years will derive from massive demographic change and ever-growing gaps between the world's rich and poor countries. "Does having 14 of the world's most powerful aircraft carriers address these issues?" he asks. "I think you have to be a really stupid conservative to think [such wealth gaps] will not make for a terribly insecure world for your children to grow up in." Pointing to the sustained dive in U.S. technology stocks, the spectacular collapse of high-flying U.S. companies like Enron and WorldCom, the sharp slide in the dollar, and indications that foreign capital that kept the U.S. economy and stock markets galloping during the 1990s may be heading for the exits, some experts argue that the economic assumptions on which a unilateralist policy and a monumental defense budget are based will prove unfounded. In the current edition of Foreign Policy, Immanuel Wallerstein of Yale University cited a recent report that a Japanese laboratory, to the great surprise of U.S. engineers, has developed a computer 20 times more powerful than the fastest U.S. counterparts. "The Japanese machine is built to analyze climate change, but U.S. machines are designed to simulate weapons," according to Wallerstein. "This contrast embodies the oldest story in the history of hegemonic powers. The dominant power concentrates (to its detriment) on the military; the candidate for successor concentrates on the economy." But, even those who believe that the military and economic roots of Washington's dominance remain strong warn that the country's supremacy may erode much more quickly if Washington continues along the triumphalist and imperious trajectory on which the hawks in the administration have set it. Washington "needs to be concerned about the level of resentment that an aggressive unilateral course would engender among its major allies," write Stephen Brooks and William Wohlfurth in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. "After all, it is influence, not power, that is ultimately most valuable." "Arrogance has its own negatives," writes Wallerstein. "Calling in chips means leaving fewer chips for next thing, and surly acquiescence breeds increasing resentment." "American hegemony is inevitable," according to Pierre Hassner of the Centre for International Studies and Research in Paris, "but the question is whether it will be bound to law or not. Hegemony can be viable only if it has an element of multilateralism."
glynch, could we have the reference? Or is this a Cheney-style secret source of information that we should just trust? "You said documents? I'm sorry I thought you said you wanted to see my big knife."
Sorry, I don't feel like registering for the New York Times, so I can't get to the article. Who made this quote? I can't tell if this is a quote straight from someone within the Bush administration or just some random person's interpretation of the strategy document.
b-bob, hegemony I don't believe in the evidentiary standards of the secret courts, the "Patriot" Act, Camp Xray, and what they're doing to poor Mr. Padilla the. US citizen, who they have imprisoned on an offshore ship so he can't have a lawyer.
