WCJ Comments on The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (17 September 2002)

To Table of Contents ...

v. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology ”— when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power.

President Bush – West Point, New York – June 1, 2002

WCJ Comments The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report – 17 September 2002
No.The NSS ReportComment
1The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States — with our allies and friends — to emphasize deterrence of the enemy's use of force, producing a grim strategy of mutual assured destruction. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, our security environment has undergone profound transformation.The Cold War strategy was indeed based on the principle of “balance of power”.

The Cold War is over, but the mindset of the US government has not changed.

They still think in terms of the Cold War concepts and assumptions: “friends'allies'enemies”, “balance of power”, “destruction”.
2Having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident: an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defense that until recently were inconceivable.But this cooperation has also created a black hole in the philosophy of the US government, which was based on the existence of an “enemy”.

The existence of an “enemy” was the reason for the existence of most Foreign Policy institutions — defence, intelligence, etc.

Now that the big enemy, the Soviets, were no longer on the scene, all the US Cold War apparatus hadto find new ways of justifying its existence. It was a great relief for the old time Cold War warriors, that a new “enemy” has appeared to fill the gaping hole — the Specter of Global Terrorism.
3But new deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporary threats rival the sheer destructive power that was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union. However, the nature and motivations of these new adversaries, their determination to obtain destructive powers hitherto available only to the world's strongest states, and the greater likelihood that they will use weapons of mass destruction against us, make today's security environment more complex and dangerous.Because the thinking of the US government is still that of the Cold War era, they make a straight substitute: “Rogue States and Terrorists” for the “Soviets”. All that needs to be done is to adapt the old Cold War machine to the new enemy.

But were the US government capable of discarding the old Cold War thinking and looking at the world afresh, from prime principles, they would have seen that Cold War “them‐and‐us” approach cannot resolve today's problems. The problems of today are the creatures of the politics of the past centuries — the European Imperialism, and the Cold War.

The regional conflicts in Africa and Asia are a hang over from the “divide‐and‐rule” policies of the European Empires. The ethnic conflicts on the borders of Russia are a hang over from the Russian and later Soviet imperial politics. And the Anti‐American terrorism is the direct result of the US policies of the 20th century.
4aIn the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:
  • brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
States that brutalize their own people did not emerge in the 1990, they existed throughout much of the 20the century. The dictatorships installed and supported by the United States in Latin America, and the Soviet Union and its “satellites” were notorious for brutalizing their own people.

But the Soviet Union had to be respected because of it's might, and its satellites and American sponsored “regimes” were “friends” of the super'powers and protected by them.

Then, in the mid 20th century, the European Empires began to disintegrate, and new Asian and African states began to emerge. And the super‐powers were vying with each other for control of these states. Some of these states were also known for their brutality and corruption. But at that time they were not considered “rogue” states, because they were “friends” of the super'powers.

The words “rogue states” was used by Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech before the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel on October 5, 1998, as follows:
“ … we know that even if we achieve this interim peace with the Palestinians, we still face great dangers — all of us — beyond the immediate horizon. Iraq and Iran, arming themselves with ballistic missiles and unconventional weapons, this is a danger not only to the peace of Israel but to the peace of the world.

And you can see these rogue states, from North Korea at the edge of Asia, to Iraq and Iran right here, who are creating an unstable and potentially violent and dangerous world for us.”
And it is this passage that was used by G.W. Bush (or his speech writers) as a blueprint for his “Axis of Evil” speech, and became the basis of the present US Foreign Policy.
  • display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
Few states have displayed much regard for international law or treaties throughout Human History, except when it was convenient to them — and least of all the 20th century super‐powers.
  • are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
The weapons of mass destruction were originally developed by the US and its rival the Soviet Union, then others (China, India, Israel, Pakistan, etc) joined the “Nuclear Club”.

Because the Likud Zionists have been talking about regime changes in the Middle East and the US government adopted the Netanyahu theories as the basis of it's foreign policy, it would not be surprising that the states threatened by the US would not want to develop WMD for self'protection. But there is no evidence to suggest that they have taken that route.

From the pattern that emerged in the War on Terror, and from statements by G.W. Bush and his team, it is clear that all the WMD talk concerning Iraq is just a pretext for launching a war against that country.

The pattern is as follows:
  1. Set conditions that the victim is unlikely to accept.
  2. If the victim accepts the conditions, set more stringent conditions, so that they would become unacceptable.
  3. Attack the victim anyway.

This is what happened in Afghanistan and now is about to happen in Iraq.

WMD is just a pretext — the real goal is “regime changes” in the Middle East, as per the Netanyahu doctrine, so as to create an new “balance of power” that would advance the US “national interests”, and allow the Greater Israel Zionist to achieve their expansionist ambitions.
  • sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
The world has indeed become a global village, and any single private individual, who has sufficient motivation and ingenuity, can cause massive destruction and loss of life anywhere in the world. And this is the only physical meaning of the “global terrorism”.

“Global Terrorism” in the sense of some kind of universal organization, devoted to terrorism for terrorism's sake does not exist. And, in that sense, no state in the world supports “Global Terrorism”. Although various countries, including the United States, have been supporting various non‐governmental para‐military groups, whenever they were sympathetic to the goals of such groups or had some interest in their operation.

The reference in this passage is probably to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Afghanistan did not support operation of any groups in other countries. The presence of the al‐Qaida bases in Afghanistan was due to historical reasons, not to desire of the Taliban government to “support global terrorism”.

Most Arab countries are sympathetic to the struggle of the Palestinians against the Israeli occupation. Support by the Iraqi government of the Palestinian resistance, is not different from the support by the American government of the Israeli war against the Palestinians. The Israeli war is seen by the Arab states, and increasingly by the rest of the world, as state terrorism and genocide, supported by the American government.
  • reject basic human values …
It is unfortunate that these “values”, and the way in which they are “rejected” are not explicitly stated.

If these values are “respect for human life, freedom and property”, then these values have been respected by various national governments, including the super‐powers, only when it was convenient to them.
    … and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
It would have been helpful to enumerate this “everything for which the US stands”.

The generalized “enemy” of the US are governments of different countries, and different individual or groups whose reasons for any adverse feeling to anything connected with the United States differ. It is most unlikely that they all “hate the United States and everything for which it stands”.

Whatever hostilities they have are more likely to be with some aspects of US government policy.

In an atmosphere of international belligerence, feelings of general hostility to a country are often the result of government propaganda, often taking form of a war hysteria in the Media. People start talking in terms of countries (rather than governments) going to war: like in “America attacks Iraq”. During the Second World War in most countries that fought against Germany the word “German” was synonymous with the word “enemy”.

Today, in America, there are cases of hostility towards American Arabs and Muslims, who have nothing to do with the events of the 9/11. Would it be right to say that “Americans hate Arabs and everything for which they stand”?

The statement “hate the United States and everything for which it stands” is just belligerent rhetoric aimed to create an atmosphere of hatred and war hysteria to justify a war. It just shows that the present mindset of the US government is not suitable for achievement of the goal of a free, peaceful and secure world.
5At the time of the Gulf War, we acquired irrefutable proof that Iraq's designs were not limited to the chemical weapons it had used against Iran and its own people, but also extended to the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biological agents. In the past decade North Korea has become the world's principal purveyor of ballistic missiles, and has tested increasingly capable missiles while developing its own WMD arsenal. Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well. These states' pursuit of, and global trade in, such weapons has become a looming threat to all nations.Iraq did use some chemical weapons in its wars. Iraq's war with Iran was supported by the US. In the Gulf war the US played a positive role of liberating Kuwait. But all this are matters of the past.

The dossier produced by Tony Blair to justify the war against Iraq has failed to produce any evidence that Iraq presents a current threat to the US or the world. The relationship between Iraq and Iran and Iraq and the neighboring Arab states has improved. And if the UN sanctions against Iraq are lifted there are possibilities for Iraq becoming a peaceful state in the Middle East.

Similar trends of improvement in the relations with the neighboring states can be observed in North Korea. Given time and encouragement, North Korea will open up and establish peaceful cooperative relations with its neighbors.

The present hostility of the United States to Iraq and North Korea is nothing more that attempts to justify military operations against these counties by the US government in accordance with the recommendations of Benjamin Netanyahu.
6We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. Our response must take full advantage of strengthened alliances, the establishment of new partnerships with former adversaries, innovation in the use of military forces, modern technologies, including the development of an effective missile defense system, and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.The “easy” victory by the US government in Afghanistan, has filled the US government with a sense of pride and arrogance, and a desire to dominate the world. But this will lead not to a free, peaceful and secure world, but to destruction and bloodshed, and eventual humiliating admittal of defeat by the US government.
7Our comprehensive strategy to combat WMD includes:
  • Proactive counterproliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed. We must ensure that key capabilities‐detection, active and passive defenses, and counterforce capabilities are integrated into our defense transformation and our homeland security systems. Counterproliferation must also be integrated into the doctrine, training, and equipping of our forces and those of our allies to ensure that we can prevail in any conflict with WMD‐armed adversaries.
  • Strengthened nonproliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies, and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction. We will enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral export controls, and threat reduction assistance that impede states and terrorists seeking WMD, and when necessary, interdict enabling technologies and materials.We will continue to build coalitions to support these efforts, encouraging their increased political and financial support for nonproliferation and threat reduction programs. The recent G–8 agreement to commit up to $20 billion to a global partnership against proliferation marks a major step forward.
  • Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states. Minimizing the effects of WMD use against our people will help deter those who possess such weapons and dissuade those who seek to acquire them by persuading enemies that they cannot attain their desired ends. The United States must also be prepared to respond to the effects of WMD use against our forces abroad, and to help friends and allies if they are attacked.
If the aim of the US government is a free, peaceful and secure world, as they claim, then all this is unnecessary. Instead they should initiate a world wide initiative for total elimination of all WMD.

This should be done not in an atmosphere of threats and belligerence, but in an atmosphere of mutual, respect, trust and cooperation between all the nation states.

The war on terror doctrine must be abandoned together with the concept of “rogue regimes”. Countries like Iraq and North Korea should not be left out as pariahs, but be drawn in into this cooperative effort of elimination of WMD as equal partners.

And of course, the former “super‐powers” (USA, Russia, etc) should also destroy their WMD and submit themselves to UN inspections.

Now that the Cold War is over, and the regional conflicts can be resolved on the basis of justice, there is no justification for any country large, or small to have WMD.
8It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.
  • In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk‐averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.
  • In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States.
  • Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so‐called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action.
The mass “anti‐terror” hysteria and the paranoia that followed it, which the Greater Israel Zionists of the Likud Olami used to harness the US military might for their expansionist goals, must be abandoned.

The US government must abandon its delusions of imperial grandeur, and the old ideas of inter‐state rivalry and domination.

The world has changed and the key concept of today is “peace on the basis of equality and justice”.

Nothing can be gained by wars. And once this is understood, the reasons for the existence of terrorism will disappear, and so will terrorism itself.
9For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat — most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.By seeking to justify for itself an unlimited and unconditional right to launch a “pre‐emptive” attack on any country that the American government, or the Likud Olami ideologues, choose as their next victim is madness. It is Hitlerism pure and simple come back to life. And just as Hitlerism of the 20th century, it will bring to Mankind nothing but destruction and bloodshed.
10We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction — weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.This passage should be studied by a psychiatrist. It is a clear case of paranoia. The patient is haunted by visions of “imminent attacks by adversaries”, and sees “rogue states” and “terrorists” lurking from every side. Can the US government achieve freedom, peace and security in the world, while they remain in this state?
11The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.The specter of the 9/11 continues to haunt the US government. Instead of using it as an opportunity to put an end to terrorism as a phenomenon, they are dragging the world towards decades of wars and terror.
12The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction — and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.This means that no nation on Earth can be sure, when it becomes victim of a US preventive strike.

We have already seen the preemptive strike doctrine at work in Afghanistan, where wedding parties were bombed and even “friendly forces” had their share of American “friendly fire”.

When the Israelis bombed a residential area, to kill a “terrorist”, their argument was “and what, if Osama bin Laden is sighted in a residential area?”, as if killing Osama bin Laden is so important, that killing dozens of innocent victims, who happen to be within the target area, is no obstacle and can be dismissed as collateral damage.

So, next time, if somebody phones the White House from London or Paris, and says that he saw a man with a long beard and a white turban on his head carrying a suitcase, which might contain a ballistic missile with WMD, an American preemptive strike will hit London or Paris following the Bush principle: “Inaction is not an option!”.
13The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.“Enemies of civilization”, “gathering dangers” — the language of the 1930's, but magnified. Stalin and Hitler used to talk of “enemies of the people”, the “enemies” of George Bush are enemies not just of the people, but of the whole Civilization.
14We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
  • build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
  • coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
  • continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
Get rid of the “anti‐terrorist” paranoia, resolve all the outstanding disputes, and create supra‐national institutions which will make it all unnecessary.
15The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.The world order has changed.

The “balance of power” between two “super‐powers”, either of which had enough weapons to destroy its rival, but was “deterred” by the knowledge that in the process it would be destroyed itself, gave way to a world ruled by a single “super‐power” which sees the world as divided into its “friends” and “enemies”, and possessed by fear of “threats” which can come at any time from anywhere, and ready to strike “preemptively” before any of these “threats” materialize.

Has the world become a safer place?

To Table of Contents ...