While much attention has been paid to the fact that the new
National Security Strategy document released today by the Bush Administration confirms that our official policy is still one of preemption, the MSM coverage of the story seems to have missed that the Administration also moved the goalposts significantly.
Yes, folks. The football field is now about 10 yards long.
More below...
The relevant language can be found in
Part V,
Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction. First, the Section, as reported confirms that,
"To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense."
But, Section C, The Way Ahead, Part 1, Nuclear Proliferation, is where the goalposts get moved about 70 yards:
The best way to block aspiring nuclear states or nuclear terrorists is to deny them access to the essential ingredient of fissile material. It is much harder to deny states or terrorists other key components, for nuclear weapons represent a 60-year old technology and the knowledge is widespread. Therefore, our strategy focuses on controlling fissile material with two priority objectives: first, to keep states from acquiring the capability to produce fissile material suitable for making nuclear weapons; and second, to deter, interdict, or prevent any transfer of that material from states that have this capability to rogue states or to terrorists.
See what just happened? Think back to 2002/2003 - the argument against Saddam from the Administration was that he had actual WMD's. The uranium allegations were the icing on the yellowcake, so to speak, as it raised the fears of a "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud." Yet, the uranium was only one part of the entire case that Colin Powell made before the UN on February 5, 2003.
Yet, as everyone soon became aware after the invasion of Iraq, there were no actual WMD's in Iraq. The Administration had egg on its face, and critics such as Joe Wilson helped provide the egg cartons.
But, now, with this new document, that scenario will not happen again. The Bush Administration is no longer interested in actual weapons programs or evidence of weapon development. Their entire anti-nuclear proliferation policy now will rest upon the presence of fissile material in a country.
Guess what country intends to try and produce its own fissile material for civilian use and, the Administartion believes, also has a parallel militry nuclear program attempting to acquire fissile material? Iran
The National Security Strategy continues:
The first objective requires closing a loophole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty that permits regimes to produce fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program.
I don't have to tell you what country this sentence is obviously aimed at. But, just in case you don't get it, the Administration provides the answer:
We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran. For almost 20 years, the Iranian regime hid many of its key nuclear efforts from the international community. Yet the regime continues to claim that it does not seek to develop nuclear weapons. The Iranian regime's true intentions are clearly revealed by the regime's refusal to negotiate in good faith; its refusal to come into compliance with its international obligations by providing the IAEA access to nuclear sites and resolving troubling questions; and the aggressive statements of its President calling for Israel to "be wiped off the face of the earth." The United States has joined with our EU partners and Russia to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations and provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes. This diplomatic effort must succeed if confrontation is to be avoided.
As important as are these nuclear issues, the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom.
Having set the rules of the game themselves, the Administration outlines how to win:
The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy. In the interim, we will continue to take all necessary measures to protect our national and economic security against the adverse effects of their bad conduct. The problems lie with the illicit behavior and dangerous ambition of the Iranian regime, not the legitimate aspirations and interests of the Iranian people. Our strategy is to block the threats posed by the regime while expanding our engagement and outreach to the people the regime is oppressing.
Really? Diplomacy is how we will proceed? Not necessarily. Proceed to Part 4, the euphamistically titled The Need for Action:
The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defense. Our deterrence strategy no longer rests primarily on the grim premise of inflicting devastating consequences on potential foes. Both offenses and defenses are necessary to deter state and non-state actors, through denial of the objectives of their attacks and, if necessary, responding with overwhelming force.
So, what constitutes "overwhelming force?" Our own nukes and other wespons systems:
Safe, credible, and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved conventional capabilities); active and passive defenses, including missile defenses; and a responsive infrastructure, all bound together by enhanced command and control, planning, and intelligence systems. These capabilities will better deter some of the new threats we face, while also bolstering our security commitments to allies. Such security commitments have played a crucial role in convincing some countries to forgo their own nuclear weapons programs, thereby aiding our nonproliferation objectives.
But, what about the international community? Well, for the Administration, they should just do what we want: "Meeting WMD proliferation challenges also requires effective international action - and the international community is most engaged in such action when the United States leads" [emphasis added].
And then the document concludes with a restatement of the preemption policy:
Taking action need not involve military force. Our strong preference and common practice is to address proliferation concerns through international diplomacy, in concert with key allies and regional partners. If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic of preemption. The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the same. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.
Conclusion
This is a major shift the necessary conditions for preemption. No longer will the Bush Administration have to rely on intelligence estimates from a CIA that it never really liked anyway. Something as short and simple as the interdiction of a shipment of weapons-grade fissile material that the Administration concludes was destined for Iran could be enough for President Bush to declare "preempt!!!" And, for those who wear their tin foil snug around their heads...Gulf of Tonkin anyone? In other words, the possibility of some sort of fabrication is there, and there would be no way to prove it until it was too late.
Not to mention the fact that the Policy document stresses, once again, that the United States government is not adverse to unleashing its own nuclear arensal to further their preemption goals. With our own military's boots stuck firmly on the ground in an unstable Iraq, how else to unleash "overwhelming force?"
The football field is shorter than ever now, folks. It's all a matter now of figuring out when Bush will decide to kick.