The actual statement is available here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Bush Describes Tough Foreign Policy Vision
Government: Doctrine submitted to Congress emphasizes
the need for preemptive attacks and reserves the right
for U.S. to take unilateral action
By EDWIN CHEN, LA TIMES STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- President Bush formally laid out his
strategic global doctrine Friday, advancing a
distinctly American internationalism that asserts the
right to launch preemptive attacks on terrorists and
regimes whose weapons of mass destruction pose a
threat to the United States.
The president also declared his intention to dissuade
potential rivals from trying to equal or surpass
America's military might.
The toughly worded 31-page document pulls together the
major themes of Bush's foreign policy addresses in the
year since the Sept. 11 attacks. It was sent to
Congress to meet a 1986 law that requires such an
assessment from each president.
But Bush's plan drew special attention because of the
highly charged atmosphere surrounding his
administration's effort to enlist the United Nations
in a new confrontation with Iraq. He also used the
document to spell out his view of U.S. strategy in a
post-Cold War world where terrorists, rather than
other superpowers, are thought to pose the biggest
threat to America. Bush made clear that he believes
the Cold War tactics of containment and deterrence are
no longer adequate to protect U.S. interests.
Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work
against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are
wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents,
the document said.
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.
Vowing to take unilateral action against perceived
threats, the Bush administration pledged to protect
the United States and its interests abroad by
identifying and destroying the threat before it
reaches our borders.
While the United States will constantly strive to
enlist the support of the international community, we
will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them
from doing harm against our people and our country
By articulating an aggressive,
go-it-alone-if-necessary doctrine, Bush distanced
himself from his recent predecessors, including his
father, the 41st president.
He's at the start of a new era, said Bruce Buchanan,
a presidential scholar at the University of Texas.
It's comparable to what happened on President
Truman's watch at the beginning of the Cold War and
containment.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other top
administration officials argued Friday that Bush's
first-strike doctrine is a long-standing U.S. option.
But Buchanan disagreed.
It is really a significant departure, not just from
the containment doctrine but from widely accepted
American principles such as: America will not strike
first, Buchanan said. And to elevate it to the
status of a doctrine--without incorporating specific
examples of a clear and present danger--that's a
novelty. It's going to take a while to sell it to the
foreign policy establishment.
On Capitol Hill, some Democrats were skeptical.
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) accused the Bush
administration of having a political personality
disorder.
They've moved from enforceable treaties as an
American strategy to military invasion as a
nonproliferation strategy, he said.
Said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a potential
candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential
nomination: I'm not at all convinced that the new
doctrine from the administration--which seems to
ignore the fact that we live in a globalized world
where allies and partnerships are more important than
ever--will actually advance our interests.
Kerry termed it a highly ideological doctrine.
But Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) praised the
Bush doctrine, noting that it also stresses the need
for alliances.
The notion is, preserving the peace requires us to
work carefully with the great powers, he said.
The national security policy statements sent to
Congress by previous presidents have been routine and
have drawn little attention, said John Lewis Gaddis, a
foreign policy scholar at Yale.
There were really no definable crises forcing a
reassessment of the grand strategy, he said. But
Bush clearly is thinking about revisions of the grand
strategy.
The forceful words in the document are also likely to
rankle some U.S. allies, who were already reluctant to
join Bush's campaign against Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein.
There was little official reaction around the world to
the document as of late Friday. But the question of
use of force against Iraq has become a major issue in
the neck-and-neck German campaign for chancellor that
culminates in elections
