National Security Strategy

I looked up the newly released NSS. Most of the reports on it are, to be kind, poor. It's long but there are some interesting parts. I'm especially interested in the doctrine of preemption, mainly due to the Tin-foil Capped Liberals who have been crying foul. QandO has picked some interesting quotes:

Ted Kennedy: Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy said it was ominous that the Bush administration "would even attempt to resuscitate its radical doctrine of preventive war."

And I like their quote of Howard Dean and the commentary.

The debate is not over whether the United States should retain the right to pre-emptive attack -— it does, and always has -— but whether it is correct to employ such a doctrine in specific circumstances. Critics who inveigh against the mere existence of a doctrine of preemption are woefully uninformed of US foreign policy -— and even the position of the current Democratic Party Chairman who said...

"America has always had an unspoken doctrine of preemption. The question is whether we have had a spoken doctrine of preemption, and the answer to that is absolutely not," Dean said in an interview with Globe editors. "To lay out a doctrine of the right of the United States to preempt any time there is a threat is pretty much an international outrage."

Dean conceded that the US retains the right to preemptive strike -— he merely objects to talking about it. (though he didn't have any trouble conceding its existence; bonus points to anybody who can satisfactorily explain that dichotemy)

I am still baffled by Dean's statement. Is he trying to make the point of "speak softly and carry a big stick?" I'm going to guess that isn't his point.

Saddly too many in this country seem to have the distorted chivalrous view that you can't defend yourself until you're attacked.

The majority of what I see in the NSS that relates to preemption is related to Terrorists.

Today our enemies have seen the results of what civilized nations can, and will, do against regimes that harbor, support, and use terrorism to achieve their political goals. Afghanistan has been liberated; coalition forces continue to hunt down the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it is not only this battlefield on which we will engage terrorists. Thousands of trained terrorists remain at large with cells in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and across Asia.

Our priority will be first to disrupt and destroy terrorist organizations of global reach and attack their leadership; command, control, and communications; material support; and finances. This will have a disabling effect upon the terrorists' ability to plan and operate.

and

We 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.

I don't understand how anyone can stand against these types of strategy. Is there a logic to letting the bad guys kill Americans first in order to take action?

The NSS is excessively speachy. I find myself becoming frustrated having to shovel through the lengthy wording that could have been so much more simply stated. Well, if you feel up to it have a look for yourself.