I will reserve my strong opinions about this article for the comments section. For now I’ll just say, “It’s damn well time!!”
Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded
By Tony Capaccio
Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) — The Pentagon is reviewing the Bush administration’s doctrine of preemptive military strikes with an eye to modifying or possibly ending it.
The international environment is “more complex” than when President George W. Bush announced the policy in 2002, Kathleen Hicks, the Defense Department’s deputy undersecretary for strategy, said in an interview. “We’d really like to update our use-of-force doctrine to start to take account for that.”
Snip>
The doctrine is being reassessed as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review of strategy, force structure and weapons programs. Hicks is overseeing the review.
“We are looking very explicitly at use of force and use of forces,” she said. “We are looking at how to articulate the use of the U.S. military instrument — how we use military force to achieve national objectives.”
President Barack Obama was elected last year on a platform that included promises to undo many Bush policies. He pledged to extract U.S. forces from Iraq, close the terror detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and give greater U.S. support to the UN.
Norway’s Nobel committee, in awarding Obama the Peace Prize last week, cited a “new climate” in world politics and the restoration of “multilateral diplomacy.” The prize also was widely seen as a repudiation of Bush’s policies.
Report to Congress
Congress requires the administration to report its national security strategy annually, and it requires the Pentagon to reassess its policies and war-fighting doctrine every four years.
The Obama administration will state its security doctrine for the first time as part of the Pentagon’s review, which will be given to Congress in February along with the fiscal 2011 budget.
Snip>
“That doctrine was always at odds with international law and norms,” said James Lindsay, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The doctrine is now “dead” after the invasion of Iraq, when the U.S. in March 2003 launched a “preventive war” to eradicate “the threat of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist,” he said.
‘New Strategy’
James Mann, an author in residence at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, said the doctrine “was presented as not just the ‘right’” to strike “before you are about to be attacked, but as an entirely new strategy for dealing with the world.”
“I don’t think the Obama people believe preemption should be defined in this incredibly broad sense — and I think they feel — with some reason — the broad definition really lost American support in the rest of the world,” said Mann, author of “Rise of the Vulcans,” a 2004 history of Bush’s war cabinet.
Snip>
To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net.
Please read the entire article and do not allow my excerpts to color your overall take of this important news.



17 Comments







I’m trying not to have this bad feeling about Ms. Hicks announcement – seems too much like rewording and renaming ‘war of aggression’ makes it o.k., you know like calling torture ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ makes it not torture.
I’d defend Obama to my last breath if he would just stand up like a man and plainly state that the war against Iraq was wrong, waged unjustly without foundation in facts and evidence, was against all that America has always stood for, was against American and international law and treaties, and has brought unforgivable death, destruction and division upon the peoples of the earth.
I won’t launch into my tirade about what really “prompted Bush” to institute his doctrine of preemptive war…
Quote of President Eisenhower 08/11/1954:
[emphasis mine] To Champaign Flyboy and 5 Deferment Dick it was not unthinkable.
Well, this is interesting.
I hope the military creates some clear boundaries to protect itself from misuse by another civilian cabal. Or people whose true interests do not lie with the best interests of the U.S.
We shall see…
Well, ROTL, do you think that civilian cabal is out of power now? I read another report (leaked and unofficial) that Obama will send 45,000 more troops to
VietNamumh, Afghanistan.Here’s the article in rawstory about the leaked info on the 45,000 more troops.
Here is a very long article in NY Times, Stanley McChrystal’s Long War.
I’m considering the timing of this article and the Times’ reputation of being an instrument of the executive branch; sure feels like we’re being worked on to accept what’s coming.
The NY Times is obviously being well paid for their ‘reporting’ of Pentagon leaked news. Just as well paid as they likely were for withholding Thomas Tamm’s information about illegal wire tapping for over a year. Even worse, they might be doing it for free just to increase newspaper sales. This is as illegal as preemptive strikes are under the UN. It is illegal to use propaganda on America’s citizens. The dime a dozen generals who used to appear to convince people that Iraq had WMDs was a glaring example of that. History repeats itself..ie..the NY Times was one of the first to sign up for Operation Mockingbird. The old Pravada was a world wide joke for spewing official government propaganda. The NYT is headed in that direction. Funny how the world laughed as Sadaam’s minister denied the truth right to his last broadcast. Seems to me that a similar situation exists at the NYT. Lie lie lie until we are caught and then tell a new lie to distract from the first lies.
If the US maintains that they have the right to attack and invade any country they wish to, does that not mean that the rest of the world can do the same to the US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Thanks, blue. You are one sharp lady! I’ve learned a lot about Op Mockingbird but didn’t know the NYT was involved in it. Going now to your link.
Yes, how long before the rest of the world wakes up and decides to play dog-eat-dog??
The media has been lying with impunity for almost 70 years. The America you wish you could get back never existed. The country you thought you had was an illusion. The rest of the world has been awake for a long time. Russia and China are sitting back and letting the US attempt to rule the world and the results of that attempt are that the US is bankrupt, its military is exhausted, and it is despised around the world. All this without any cost to the other two biggest military powers in our world. China holds much of the US’s debt without having had to fire a shot. Considering that the US suckered Russia into Afghanistan, I don’t doubt they enjoy seeing America go down the same path. Ironic that the US is now being fought by the same forces they paid to attack Russia in the 80s. Russia and China could end these illegal wars whenever they wanted to by supplying anti aircraft and anti tank weapons. So far it suits their purposes not to. If Israel or the US attacks Iran, I strongly suspect that will change.
Geez, Blue! The info at your link is downright depressin’. I knew of the stories of Life, Time, Ben Bradlee at WAPO, and those thanked by David Rockefeller for peddling the ‘right’ propaganda, but Wiki states 25 major newspapers were on board and journalists all over the world bribed with Big Bucks.
I’m glad they’re going down the toilet; wish it had happened long ago. I did not see any allegation of McClatchey people being a party to this.
Thanks for all the new books now added to my must have list – I was running short of something to read. (heh,heh; not likely).
Thanks, scout. I really wish we didn’t have so many reasons to be sceptical about these sorts of announcements. Truly abandoning the concept of preemptive strikes would be a tremendous move forward. Like you, I’ll wait and see what really comes out as the new policy (and even then I wonder if it will just be abandoned if it is felt to be “too constraining”).
Thanks, Jim. I underhandedly pointed that NY Times link @ 6 at you. (McChrystal’s Long War) I just can’t take it all in, Jim. I’d appreciate your posting on it. It’s very important – are we being set up? I guess you’ve seen where Japan has withdrawn their Navy’s tankers out of the Afghan involvement. Reports tell that Obama administration being very big hearted about it and not condemning them.
[saw a comment by Boo over at the new News site yesterday. He doesn't post much any more.]
scout
Japan does not buy the official US government story of 911. The party that led 3 parliamentary inquiries into 911 was recently elected.
http://www.chycho.com/?q=Japan_911_chycho2009
The Japanese know something first hand about the dirty tricks preceeding the first Pearl Harbor. And I’d say they are more attuned to the thought processes of people in that area of the world that our know-it-all elite are.
Some torture evidence to be released soon in the UK unless there is an appeal filed.
*********
“In a devastating judgment, two senior judges roundly dismissed the foreign secretary’s claims that disclosing the evidence would harm national security and threaten the UK’s vital intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US.
In what they described as an “unprecedented” and “exceptional” case, to which the Guardian is a party, they ordered the release of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA told British officials – and maybe ministers – about Ethiopian-born Mohamed before he was secretly interrogated by an MI5 officer in 2002.
In the end, Miliband had to rely for help on a CIA letter to MI6 claiming that disclosure of the document would harm the security of the US and UK.
The judges made it clear they did not believe the claim was credible. “The public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming,” they said. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/binyam-mohamed-torture-evidence-miliband
wow!! I’ll check and see if someone has done a diary on this great news. Thanks, blue.
Lookee here, blue. Thanks to you.