US: President Bush's new national security strategy is an expression of American values of freedom and democracy. It is also an explanation of how (and why) the US will defend itself by striking first, if necessary, and alone.
The following is an edited extract of one part of the document, which deals specifically with external threats to the US:
The nature of the Cold War threat required the United States - with our allies and friends - to emphasise 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.
But 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.
In 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:
• brutalise their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
• display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbours and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
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;
• sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
• reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.
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 defence system and increased emphasis on intelligence collection and analysis.
Our comprehensive strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction (WMD) includes:
• Pro-active counter-proliferation efforts. We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed.
• Strengthened non-proliferation efforts to prevent rogue states and terrorists from acquiring the materials, technologies and expertise necessary for weapons of mass destruction.
• Effective consequence management to respond to the effects of WMD use, whether by terrorists or hostile states.
It 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 defence.
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.
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.
For centuries, international law recognised 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.
We 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 terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction - weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning.
The 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 11th, 2001, mass civilian casualties are the specific objective of terrorists, and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive 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 pre-emptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats, nor should nations use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilisation openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather...
The major institutions of American national security were designed in a different era to meet different requirements. All of them must be transformed.
It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must build and maintain our defences beyond challenge. Our military's highest priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must:
• assure our allies and friends;
• dissuade future military competition;
• deter threats against US interests, allies, and friends; and
• decisively defeat any adversary if deterrence fails.
The unparalleled strength of the United States armed forces, and their forward presence, have maintained the peace in some of the world's most strategically vital regions.
The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the US commitments to allies and friends. Through our willingness to use force in our own defence and in defence of others, the United States demonstrates its resolve to maintain a balance of power that favours freedom.
To contend with uncertainty and to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond western Europe and north-east Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of US forces.
We know from history that deterrence can fail; and we know from experience that some enemies cannot be deterred. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy, whether a state or non-state actor, to impose its will on the United States, our allies or our friends.
We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equalling, the power of the United States.
Today the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs is diminishing. In a globalised world, events beyond America's borders have a greater impact inside them. Our society must be open to people, ideas and goods from across the globe. The characteristics we most cherish - our freedom, our cities, our systems of movement, and modern life - are vulnerable to terrorism.
In exercising our leadership, we will respect the values, judgment and interests of our friends and partners. Still, we will be prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require.
The full text of this document may be read at, http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/special/, and on the White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov