Thursday Linkagery

I heard about this article on "First Up", on WZGM.

Bush Doctrine II ?
------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush to Restate Terror Strategy
2002 Doctrine of Preemptive War To Be Reaffirmed

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 16, 2006; A01



President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.

The long-overdue document, an articulation of U.S. strategic priorities that is required by law, lays out a robust view of America's power and an assertive view of its responsibility to bring change around the world. On topics including genocide, human trafficking and AIDS, the strategy describes itself as "idealistic about goals and realistic about means."

The strategy expands on the original security framework developed by the Bush administration in September 2002, before the invasion of Iraq. That strategy shifted U.S. foreign policy away from decades of deterrence and containment toward a more aggressive stance of attacking enemies before they attack the United States.

The preemption doctrine generated fierce debate at the time, and many critics believe the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq fatally undermined an essential assumption of the strategy -- that intelligence about an enemy's capabilities and intentions can be sufficient to justify preventive war.

In his revised version, Bush offers no second thoughts about the preemption policy, saying it "remains the same" and defending it as necessary for a country in the "early years of a long struggle" akin to the Cold War. In a nod to critics in Europe, the document places a greater emphasis on working with allies and declares diplomacy to be "our strong preference" in tackling the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," the document continues. "When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."

Such language could be seen as provocative at a time when the United States and its European allies have brought Iran before the U.N. Security Council to answer allegations that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons. At a news conference in January, Bush described an Iran with nuclear arms as a "grave threat to the security of the world."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't say you weren't warned. I also bet that all those who were against the invasion of Iraq will be against invading Iran, even if they did say that Iran was a greater threat than Iraq. I have always believed that Iran was the true target of invading Iraq, the removal of Saddam was just a bonus incentive. I wonder if we would be able to hit "Mini-Elvis", a.k.a. DPRK at the same time?
I doubt it, but a guy can hope, can't he?


I have found an very interesting article on understanding our enemy over at Northeast Inelligence Network. On the link, I bypassed the intro page, which takes forever to load at 28k dial up speeds.

I wish I had more time to comment on these things in a coherent fashion. All I seem to do is work, eat and sleep anymore... my surfing time is carved out of sleep schedule, and it shows.