What is NSS and How to Deal with ITt - Essay Example

A Critical Analysis of the United s National Security Strategy Document 2006 The United s National Security Strategy Document, orthe NSS, is required to be presented by the Executive Branch of the government, preferably every year, in order to alert the nation about the likely threats that have been identified in regard to the nation’s security interests and how the government intends to deal with these threats. This document also serves to inform and to promote further debate in a democracy and amongst others who are interested in American and global security interests around the world. Criticism can assist in further enhancements to the security strategy and its implementation, as well as providing useful feedback from other interested actors around the globe. The 2006 NSS document has been described as being more of a global security strategy document, then a national security strategy document, because of the breadth of its coverage and the desire of the American administration to tackle threats to the United States of America on foreign soil. In addition to presenting a strategy for the protection and the promotion of American interests, this strategy document also presents a grand strategy for the world, which has a certain promise for bringing about global uplift. New threats, including threats arising from viral epidemics and threats to the environment have been identified, along with older concerns associated with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The 2006 NSS document presents a global vision which is so ambitious that some have called it unworkable, ineffective or likely to be very expensive. However, President Bush’s administration has had to endure even more severe criticism about its Iraq policy and it has shown that it has the capacity to win with grand schemes. This brief essay takes a critical look at the 2006 NSS document which was recently presented by Mr. Bush. Contents Introduction 3 The Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy 6 Conclusion 10 Bibliography / References 11 Introduction The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99-433) presents the legal foundations related to the requirement for the preparation of a document by the executive branch of the United States government, i.e. the Presidency, which is expected to highlight the national security concerns of the United States of America and how the administration plans to deal with these concerns (Wikipedia, 2006, “National Security Strategy of the United States”). The 2006 version of Bush administration’s National Security Strategy Document or NSS has been said to be deficient, because this time it was late by three years and the previous NSS document was presented in the year 2002 (Korb, 2006, Pp. 7). Although such a mishap is perhaps excusable, because of the Iraq War, it has to be remembered that this document is required to be presented every year and President Bush has only produced two of such documents in his five years in office. The language used in the 2006 version of the NSS document is less belligerent then what had been presented in the 2002 NSS document, but the 2006 NSS attempts to present a formula for the protection of American security and prosperity as well as the nation’s belief’s about freedom, human rights, democracy, terrorism, poverty and weapons of mass destruction (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2006, Pp. 1 – 8) and (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2002, Pp. 1 – 17). The NSS document is the result of attempts to define the national and vital interests, identifying threats to these interests and then ascertaining actions as well as priorities that will neutralize these threats (MIT, 2002, “Elements of National Security Policy”). The Bush administration still thinks that preemptive war and attempts to alter the existing international order to suit the interest of the United States is an important part of the NSS (Izumikawa, 2004, Pp. 257 – 267). However, United States is today challenged by the need to transform its overwhelming might into effective influence around the world and to ensure that it does not keep getting involved into expensive confrontations with others all over the world (Sherwood – Randall, 2006, Pp. 1 – 10). Although, the 2006 NSS document does mention preemption, but there is a stated preference for dialogue and negotiations (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2006, Pp. 18). The 2006 NSS document presents the notion that the nation’s interests will be served if American values and democracy are propagated around the world and the mindset of its key allies is altered in a manner that will serve to both support America and to make diplomacy more workable in an international setting (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2006, Pp. 1 – 8). Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the changed situation in these countries, has definitely been encouraging and it is entirely possible that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will present an immediate threat to anyone, except for the internal skirmishes in these countries that will continue to present problems for a while. However, it is important that the American administration place an emphasis on the “quality of democracy” for its allies and the need for economic development so that economic frustrations do not turn into acts of terror and destruction (Ikenberry, 2006, Pp. 5 – 10). A democracy is supposed to be an effective form of government that can nudge a people towards progress, prosperity and hope. Nations that are American allies are not expected to have governments that can best be described as ineffective democracies. Commentators have expressed some reservations about certain American friends including Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, questioning if it is possible for Americans to somehow alter the situation about these nations so that the reality is more in line with the NSS vision (Kumar, 2002, “Politics in Pakistan Post-September 11, 2001”), (Izumikawa, 2004, Pp. 266 – 270), (Pena, 2003, Pp. 16 - 20) and (MIT, 2002, “American National Security”). Pakistan presents problems because although its military took over from a democratically elected government, after a confrontation that was possibly about maintaining the perks and privileges of the armed forces in an economically decaying society, this military has eliminated all political movements and yet failed to set right a corrupt, ineffective and incompetent bureaucracy which has been thoroughly spoiled over many years. Pakistan has failed to make any economic progress and still concentrates on trying to export its manpower to all parts of the world into which this manpower cannot integrate and is increasingly unwanted. While many nations with less have progressed, this Islamic country remained as backward as ever and possibly became even worse as the limited incomes that the economic elites were willing to provide to the masses and which had been derived from unimaginative industry, remained unrealistic as compared to what was required for living. Dwindling exports, requirements to repay the loans that the nation had taken, coupled with spiraling cost of living brought on by an unrelenting greed made life a misery for everyone in the country, especially for the aged citizens who are provided neither livelihood nor a pension. United States did help by canceling the debts owed by Pakistan, but it is very likely that even this assistance was poorly managed. In such a situation, the poorly informed and educated masses were easily led astray by the fundamentalist dreams spun by the ignorant Islamic clergy. Saudi Arabia is only making a slow progress towards becoming a democracy and Egypt can only be described as a “cosmetic democracy” in which most elections are claimed to have been rigged and the country is in effect ruled by a single party. It is obvious that it is difficult enough to impose American values on friendly countries and commentators have questioned if meddling in the affairs of other countries in order to try and further beneficial ideals can serve America’s national or economic interest (Pena, 2003, Pp. 1 – 16). Today, the United States of America is the most capable country in the world that has the capacity to exercise substantial power in all spheres, but even the resources of the United States are not without limits (Weston, 2005, Pp. 14). In the Middle East, which has long been a source for global instability, the economic problems of the people of Palestine have also been an impediment for the achievement of lasting peace in the Middle – East and often poverty is dumped by Islamic leaders as having being caused by the United States. It is not the interventionist United States policies that bring out the hatred, but rather it is the fact that backward nations just cannot find a way to integrate themselves into the global economic system of free trade and competition (Pena, 2003, Pp. 1 – 16). The 2006 NSS document does recognizes that it is important for the United States to “ignite a new era of economic growth” and “expand the circle of development by opening societies” (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2006, Pp. 1 – 8). But despite this, commentators have asked if it is possible for the United States to effectively indulge in a grand strategy that has been presented in the NSS, because making this strategy to work is going to take some doing and the strategy is also likely to be very expensive as well as being ineffective (Korb, 2006, Pp. 1 – 3). However, many skeptics had earlier presented even more discouraging comments about President Bush’s Iraq strategy and the war in Iraq. The Iraq War has ended in victory, even though much still needs to be done and those who are not being very realistic are now asking for a pullout when the job has not yet been completed. A pullout without a total success will mean defeat for America and its allies. The global situation is complex and the United States of America needs to utilize its resources judiciously to continue to provide security and prosperity for its people and allies. It is, therefore, important to take a critical look at the NSS document of 2006, because the strategy presented in this document is important for America and the world. This brief essay attempts to take a critical look at the latest United States National Security Strategy of 2006 which has been presented by President Bush. The Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy The highest priority for a National Security Strategy is to contain the terrorists who can strike directly at America or American interests and to prevent terrorist groups from acquiring sophisticated weapons, or weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist attacks have the capacity to reverse any progress that may have been achieved and to vastly increase the economic costs associated with human uplift. Although it is very likely that the threat of terrorism can only be minimized if discontented and poorly enlightened people are provided a hope for the future, commentators have suggested that President Bush’s security policy is far more of a global security policy then a national security policy. The NSS document presents the notion of preemption in regard to acting against groups which may be planning terrorist activity, or as a response against states that may be intent on destabilizing others. However, even though this is clearly a very practical and down to earth approach for quickly setting things right, it has to be asked if the excessive use of preemption will not destabilize international law and order (Khan, 2005, Pp. 10 – 12)? It has also been stated by those who have been critical of the recent NSS document that “the United States should stop meddling in the affairs of other nations and regions” (Pena, 2003, Pp. 8) and that the 2006 NSS document by itself presents more of a force and military solution to protect American interests. However, it has to be realized that if the overall vision of a better world has to be realized, then the United States has to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries and regions. The nature of such meddling has to be less confrontationist and the techniques for such meddling have to be better designed or devised. In a world that is likely to see further constraints in resource that are available to humanity, with many challenges that will be required to be faced as petroleum and energy resources run out, most people around the world want to be able to have a dignified existence, including opportunities and grace in their old age, as they live out their earthly lives following whatever religion that may choose to follow. America has a great military, but in addition to this military, America also has another resource, which is not directly under the control of its government, its multinational corporations which have invested globally with a view to provide maximum business benefits for stakeholders. Perhaps the private sector America and businesses from other developed countries can be persuaded to invest judiciously in all regions of the world and harness the local economies so that global resources can be harnessed in a manner that will provide benefit to the local populations, who will have something to do, as well as bringing benefits for the whole world. Military solutions are destructive solutions and are generally not enduring. However, linking nations into the global economy not only provides benefits to a nation, but also to the world. Linking and building global economies are far more challenging then launching military actions. Perhaps the reason for the destruction in the horn of Africa was that its people had nothing to do, no means to earn an income and no creative outlets for their energies. However, one wonders if there may be something in the horn of Africa which can be of benefit to the rest of the world and which can also be a source of subsistence for its people? Perhaps government and private think tanks as well as other groups can device some way in which a sustainable economy can be built for those countries which are finding it difficult to interlink with the global economy. Certainly, peace and stability is a prerequisite for any economy building, but US meddling in countries and regions should also be directed towards somehow building up an integration of the local economy with the global economy. For this to happen, expert economists, managers and industrialists, rather then military experts with a will to meddle are required. The United States can certainly win more hearts and minds with such meddling then with any military interventions. The 2006 NSS document is supposed to be a document which is ultimately required to discuss how the people of the United States of America, predominantly those who live within the territories of the United States, will be protected from external threats (The Executive Branch of the United States of America, 2006, Pp. 1 – 8). However, the 2006 NSS document mostly presents a detailed picture of how the United States administration will handle threats outside of the United States, which may not necessarily be immediately directed against American citizens. Very little is said about how the essential infrastructure within the United States is proposed to be protected, how narcotic smuggling to the United States is likely to be stopped or how any terrorist threats within the United States of America itself are likely to be neutralized. The creation and continued development of the Department of Homeland Security, reorganization of the United States Intelligence Community, recognition of new threats in the form of contagious diseases including HIV / AIDS and avian influenza as well as threats to the environment are briefly mentioned in the 2006 NSS document. However, the main thrust is mostly about neutralizing threats outside of the United States of America. Specific details about any plans for the neutralization of environmental threats or avian flue epidemics have not been provided. It is entirely possible that separate reports by other government departments, including the Department of Homeland Security, may adequately cover the internal threats to the United States of America, but something should have been said about what the administration intends to do about the so called new threats to the environment and threats arising out of viral epidemics. Another problem with grand strategy that has been presented in the 2006 NSS document is that with so many dimensions to this security policy which have been defined in the NSS document, it becomes difficult to actually measure if an effective job of implementing this strategy is being carried out. In the Cold – War era, containment of the Soviet Union and its allies was the crux of the United States NSS. United States security strategy did not succeed in Vietnam because a pro – US regime was defeated and a communist regime was installed in this country. But, despite this, the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union indicated that the security strategy had finally worked. However, in the present era, a variety of new threats have been defined and these range from the threat of terrorism, threats to economic stability around the world, concerns associated with the promotion of American values to prevention of environmental threats to humanity and the containment of weapons of mass destruction as well as contagious diseases. Thus, despite the fact that a comprehensive list of objectives has been presented, it will be necessary to measure progress on a broad front in order to ensure that the overall strategy is being effectively implemented (Betts, 2004, Pp. 29 – 32). Some observers have stated that the 2006 NSS document presents a global security strategy and that the homeland security strategy ought to be the real national security strategy for the United States of America (Pena, 2003, Pp. 3 – 20). It must be said that the 2006 NSS is a fine document that has been well researched and that this document is quite comprehensive about what the United States of America intends to do about threats to American and global security outside the nation, on foreign soil. Obviously, the US administration intends to take the fight for national and global security outside the territories of the United States of America and all attempts will be made to neutralize any threats before they pose a danger to Americans in the United States of America. Even though the 2006 NSS document presents a thorough grasp of global problems and the prevailing situation in different regions of the world, America’s mission to become a global emperor is likely to require some very dedicated efforts by a very large number of widely distributed members of the American administration and military as well as the cooperation of a large number of countries and foreign government agencies belonging to these countries. The administration will try to use dialoged and diplomacy to seek the cooperation of other nations, rather then to use its military might. However, what remains to be seen is just what cooperation is actually extended to the United States by others, in a sincere effort to make the world a better place and to capitalize on a unique opportunity that has been presented by the Bush administration for global advancement. It is important that any cooperation that is actually extended is free from any required paybacks or other strings that may be attached. The price that has already been paid to secure the cooperation of American allies for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has been heavy and a lot now depends on sincere cooperation by other countries who may seek to enhance their national interests’ rather then the global interests in a grand strategy. Nevertheless, the Bush administration’s NSS document is a vision that is worth pursuing, even though the United States administration will have to be cautious about ensuring that the price that Americans do end up paying for global advancement is proportionate and affordable. Conclusion Despite the criticism that has been levied on the 2006 NSS document, what this document represents is an attempt by a United States administration to provide a grand strategy for global uplift and advancement. Although the vision is worth striving for, success will depend on the sincere cooperation of a very large number of foreign actors who must also be willing to contribute towards the costs associated with this grand strategy. Skilful diplomacy on a broad front may succeed in inducing many nations to strive for progress towards a better world and greater cooperation in the future. Bibliography / References 1. Allison, G. T. & American Academy of Political and Social Science 2006. Confronting the specter of nuclear terrorism Thousand Oaks, CA; London: SAGE Publications. 2. Amnesty, I. 2004, United States of America: undermining security: violations of human dignity, the rule of law and the National Security Strategy in war on terror detentions London: International Secretariat. 3. Art, R. J. 2004. A grand strategy for America New Delhi, India: Manas Publications in collaboration with Cornell University Press. 4. Beck, Charles A. 2005. Is The Bush Doctrine the Right American National Security Strategy for the Beginning of the 21st Century? US Air force War College. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://stinet.dtic.mil/dticrev/PDFs/ADA431818.pdf 5. Betts, Richard K. 2006. U.S. National Security Strategy: Lenses and Landmarks. Princeton University. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/papers/betts.pdf 6. Blank, S. & Army, W. C. 2003, Rethinking asymmetric threats [Carlisle Barracks, PA]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 7. Blank, S., Johnsen, W. T., Young, T. D., & Army, W. C. 2000, European security: Washingtons shaping strategy in action [Carlisle Barracks, Pa.]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 8. Burns, M. 2004, Preventive warriors: a documentary on the National Security Strategy of the Bush Administration Vernon, CT: Preventative Warriors. 9. Bush, G. & United States President 1990, National security strategy of the United States, 1990-1991 Washington, D.C.: Brasseys (US). 10. Carter, A. B. & Perry, W. J. 1999, Preventive defense: a new security strategy for America Washington, D.C.; [Great Britain]: Brookings Institution Press. 11. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategy Essay Competition (National Defense University) & United States. Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 2001, Essays 2001 Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. 12. Cimbala, S. J. 2005, Nuclear weapons and strategy: U.S. nuclear policy for the twenty-first century London: Routledge. 13. Conty, R. A. 1989. UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY STRATE FOR THE NEXT CENTURY. Global Security.org. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1989/CRA.htm 14. Cook, Walton. 2002. Narcotics Policy and the National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.buzzwordbook.com/Security_Strategy_2_3.pdf 15. Cordesman, A. H. 2004. The war after the war: strategic lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press, Center for Strategic and International Studies. 16. Cox, M., Ikenberry, G. J., & Inoguchi, T. 2000, American democracy promotion: impulses, strategies, and impacts Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 17. Crane, C. C. & Army, W. C. 2002, USAWC key strategic issues list [Carlisle Barracks, PA]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 18. Cronin, A. K., Ludes, J. M., & Georgetown University. Center for Peace and Security Studies 2004. Attacking terrorism: elements of a grand strategy Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 19. Dannreuther, R. & Peterson, J. 2006, Security strategy and transatlantic relations London: Routledge. 20. Davis, E. L. 2003. Globalization’s Security Implications. Rand. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/2005/IP245.pdf 21. Davis, L. E., Shapiro, J., Arroyo Center, & Rand Corporation 2003, The U.S. Army and the new national security strategy Santa Monica, CA : RAND. 22. Davis, P. K., McEver, J., Wilson, B., United States. Air Force, & Project, A. F. 2002, Measuring interdiction capabilities in the presence of anti-access strategies: exploratory analysis to inform adaptive strategy for the Persian Gulf Santa Monica, CA: Rand. 23. DeSouza, P. J. 2000, Economic strategy and national security: a next generation approach Boulder, Colo.; Oxford: Westview Press. 24. Dombrowski, P. J. & Naval, W. C. 2005. Naval power in the twenty-first century: a Naval War College review reader Newport, R.I.: Naval War College Press. 25. Donnelly, T. 2005. The military we need: the defense requirements of the Bush doctrine Washington, D.C.: AEI Press. 26. Dufourcq, J. & Ponsard, L. 2005, Security strategies: NATO, the United States, and the European Union Rome: NATO Defense College. 27. Feldman, S. & Merkaz Yafeh le-mehkarim astrategiyim 2003. After the war in Iraq: defining the new strategic balance Brighton, Portland, Or. : Sussex Academic Press/Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. 28. Fishel, J. T. & Manwaring, M. G. 2006, Uncomfortable wars revisited Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 29. Flournoy, M. A. & National Defense University Press 2001, QDR 2001: strategy-driven choices for Americas security Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. 30. Friedberg, A. L. 2000, In the shadow of the garrison state: Americas anti-statism and its Cold War grand strategy Princeton, NJ; Chichester: Princeton University Press. 31. Gaddis, J. L. 2004, Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of American national security policy during the Cold War, Rev. and exp. Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 32. Gaddis, J. L. 2004, Surprise, security, and the American experience Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press. 33. Gaddis, J. L. 2005, Strategies of containment: a critical appraisal of postwar American national security policy during the Cold War, Rev. and expanded Ed, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34. Gersdorf, T. 2005. Comparison of the Security Strategies of the United States and the European Union Is there a common approach in combating terrorism? United States Army Command and Staff College. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll3&CISOPTR=350 35. Gerstein, D. M. 2005, Securing Americas future: national strategy in the information age Westport, Conn.: Praeger Security International. 36. Goh, E. & East-West Center, 2005, Meeting the China challenge: the U.S. in Southeast Asian regional security strategies Washington, DC: East-West Center Washington. 37. Goldfarb, D. 2004, Thinking the unthinkable: security threats, cross-border implications, and Canadas long-term strategies Toronto, ON: C.D. Howe Institute. 38. Goodby, J. E., Buwalda, P., & Trenin, D. 2002, A strategy for stable peace: toward a Euroatlantic security community Washington, D.C.; [Great Britain]; Arlington, Va.: United States Institute of Peace Press: Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. 39. Hart, G. 2004. The fourth power: a grand strategy for the United States in the twenty-first century Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. 40. Hashimoto, A., Mochizuki, M., Takara, K., George Washington University, Elliott School of International Affairs, Sigur Center for Asian Studies, & Nansei Shoto Industrial Advancement Center. 2005, The Okinawa question and the U.S.-Japan alliance Washington, DC: The George Washington University, The Elliott School of International Affairs, and The Sigur Center for Asian Studies. 41. Hattendorf, J. B. & Center for Naval Warfare Studies. 2004, The evolution of the U.S. Navys maritime strategy, 1977-1986 Newport, R.I.: Naval War College, Center for Naval Warfare Studies. 42. Heikka, H., Ulkopoliittinen Instituutti, F., & Institut für, E. P. 2003, Grand strategies and the northern dimension of European security: four scenarios for 2010 Helsinki; Berlin: Ulkopoliittinen instituutti: Institut fur Europaische Politik. 43. Hentz, J. J. 2004, The obligation of empire: United States grand strategy for a new century Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 44. Heurlin, B. & Institut for internationale studier (Denmark) 2003. New roles of military forces: global and local implications of the revolution in military affairs Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies. 45. Heymann, P. B. & Kayyem, J. N. 2005, Protecting liberty in an age of terror Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press. 46. Horowitz, S. A., Heo, U., & Tan, A. C. 2007, Identity and change in East Asian conflicts : the cases of China, Taiwan, and the Koreas New York : Palgrave Macmillan. 47. Howard, R. D. & Sawyer, R. L. 2006, Terrorism and counterterrorism: understanding the new security environment: readings & interpretations, 2nd Ed, Dubuque, Iowa: McGraw Hill Contemporary Learning Series. 48. Ikenberry, G. J. 2005, American foreign policy: theoretical essays, 5th Ed, New York; London: Georgetown University, c2005. 49. Ikenberry, J. G. and Slaughter, Anne – Marie. 2006. FORGING A WORLD OF LIBERTY UNDER LAW U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY. Princeton Project on National Security. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/report/FinalReport.pdf 50. Izumikawa, Yasuhiro. 2004. Strategic Innovation or Strategic Nonsense? Assessing the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy. The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 15 (2004). Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jaas/periodicals/JJAS/PDF/2004/No.15-257.pdf 51. Jablonsky, D. 1995. TIME’S CYCLE AND NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY: THE CASE FOR CONTINUITY IN A TIME OF CHANGE. US Army War College. 52. Jervis, R. 2005, American foreign policy in a new era New York; London: Routledge. 53. Kalicki, J. H. & Goldwyn, D. L. 2005, Energy and security: toward a new foreign policy strategy Washington, D.C.; Baltimore: Woodrow Wilson Center Press: Johns Hopkins University Press. 54. Kaufman, D. J., Clark, D. S., & Sheehan, K. P. 1991, U.S. national security strategy for the 1990s Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press. 55. Kayyem, J. N., Pangi, R. L., & Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness 2003, First to arrive : state and local responses to terrorism Cambridge, Mass. ; London : MIT Press. 56. Kean, T. H., Hamilton, L., & National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 2004, The 9/11 Commission report : final report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, Official government Ed, Washington, DC : National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.. 57. Kegley, C. W. & Wittkopf, E. R. 2001, World politics: trend and transformation, 8th Ed, Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, c2001. 58. Keller, W. W. & Mitchell, G. R. 2006, Hitting first: preventive force in U.S. security strategy Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. 59. Kennedy, P. M. & Hitchcock, W. I. 2000, From war to peace: altered strategic landscapes in the twentieth century New Haven, Conn.; London: Yale University Press. 60. Khan, T. A. 2005. Doctrine of Preemption: Analysis and Implications for South Asia. US Army War College. Retrieved: December 8, 2006. From: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil210.pdf 61. Kirshner, J et al. 2003. Iraq and Beyond: The New U.S. National Security Strategy. Cornell University. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/PeaceProgram/publications/occasional_papers/Iraq-and-Beyond.pdf 62. Kleinberg, Howard. 2006. Missile Defense Strategy Cited in New National Security Strategy Document. George C. Marshall Institute. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/392.pdf 63. Knezo, G. J. 2003, Counterterrorism: federal research and development, organization, policy and funding New York: Nova Science. 64. Knight, Charles. 2002. Essential Elements Missing in the National Security Strategy of 2002. Boston University. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0211nss2002.pdf 65. Korb, L. J. & Council on Foreign Relations 2003, A new national security strategy in an age of terrorists, tyrants, and weapons of mass destruction : three options presented as presidential speeches New York, NY ; [Washington, D.C.] : Council on Foreign Relations : Distributed by Brookings Institution Press. 66. Korb, L. J., Kraig, M., & The Stanley Foundation 2003, US strategies for national security: Winning the peace in the 21st century; A task force report of the strategies for US national security program Muscatine, IA: The Stanley foundation. 67. Korb, Lawrance and Wadhams, Caroline. 2006. A Critique of the Bush Administration’s National Security Strategy. The Stanley Foundation. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/reports/pab06nss.pdf 68. Kumar, S. 2002. Politics in Pakistan Post-September 11, 2001. Strategic Analysis: Apr-Jun 2002 (Vol. XXVI No. 2). Retrieved: December 5, 2006. From: http://www.ciaonet.org/olj/sa/sa_apr02kus01.html 69. Layne, C. 2006, The peace of illusions: American grand strategy from 1940 to the present Ithaca, N.Y.; London: Cornell University Press. 70. Legvold, R. & American Academy of Arts and Sciences 2003, Thinking strategically: the major powers, Kazakhstan, and the Central Asian nexus Cambridge, Mass; Cambridge, Mass; London: American Academy of Arts and Sciences: MIT Press. 71. Lennon, A. T. & Eiss, C. 2004, Reshaping rogue states: preemption, regime change and U.S. policy toward Iran, Iraq and North Korea Cambridge, Mass.; London: The MIT Press. 72. Lesch, D. W. 2003, The Middle East and the United States: a historical and political reassessment, 3rd Ed, Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 73. Leverett, F. L. 2005, Inheriting Syria: Bashars trial by fire Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 74. Lloyd, R. M. & Naval War College Intersessional Conference (2005, A nation at war: reconciling ends and means Newport, R.I.: Naval War College. 75. Lock-Pullan, R. 2006, US intervention policy and army innovation: from Vietnam to Iraq London, Eng.; New York, N.Y.: Routledge. 76. Loveman, B. 2004, Strategy for empire: U.S. regional security policy in the post-Cold War era Lanham, MD: SR Books. 77. Mahajan, R. 2003, Full spectrum dominance: U. S. power in Iraq and beyond New York; London: Seven Stories Press: Turnaround Publisher Services. 78. Manwaring, M. G., Corr, E. G., & Dorff, R. H. 2003, The search for security: a U.S. grand strategy for the twenty-first century Westport, Conn.: Praeger. 79. Meteyer, D. O. & USAF Institute for National Security Studies 2005, The art of peace: dissuading China from developing counter-space weapons [Colorado Springs], Colo.: USAF Institute for National Security Studies, USAF Academy. 80. Metz, S., Johnson, D. V., & Army, W. C. 2001, Asymmetry and U.S. military strategy: definition, background, and strategic concepts [Carlisle Barracks, PA]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 81. MIT. 2002. Open Courseware - American National Security Policy, Fall 2002. MIT. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://ocw.mit.edu/ans15436/ZipForEndUsers/17/17-471Fall-2002/17-471Fall-2002.zip 82. Mitrovich, G. 2000, Undermining the Kremlin: Americas strategy to subvert the Soviet Bloc, 1947-1956 Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press. 83. Murdock, C. A. & Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington 2004, Improving the practice of national security strategy: a new approach for the post-Cold War world Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press. 84. Murray, W. & Army, W. C. 2004, A nation at war in an era of strategic change [Carlisle Barracks, PA]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 85. Nakasone, Y., Connors, L., & Hood, C. P. 2002, Japan: a state strategy for the twenty-first century London: Routledge - Curzon. 86. Naval, W. C. 2002, National security strategy after 9/11/01 Newport, R.I.: Naval War College Press. 87. Naval, W. C. 2002, Newport papers: national security strategy after 9/11/01 Newport, R.I.: United States Naval War College. 88. OConnor, J. R. & Army, W. C. 2004, "One China" policy with Taiwan: implications for future U.S. national security strategy Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: U.S. Army War College. 89. OConnor, R. G. 1972, Force & diplomacy: essays military and diplomatic Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press. 90. Orr, R. C. & Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington 2004, Winning the peace: an American strategy for post-conflict reconstruction Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press. 91. Parker, H. S. & National Defense University. Institute for National Strategic Studies 2002, Agricultural bioterrorism: a federal strategy to meet the threat Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University. 92. Patterson, R. 2004, Reckless disregard: how liberal Democrats undercut our military, endanger our soldiers, and jeopardize our security Washington, D.C.; Lanham, Md.: Regnery: Distributed to the trade by National Book Network. 93. Pena, Charles V. 2003. Bush’s National Security Strategy Is a Misnomer. Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 496. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-496es.html 94. Pollack, K. M. & ebrary, I. 2005, The Persian puzzle: the conflict between Iran and America, Random House trade paperback Ed, New York: Random House. 95. Pumphrey, C. W., Army, W. C., Triangle Institute for Security Studies, & Duke University. Center for Law, E. a. N. S. 2000, Transnational threats: blending law enforcement and military strategies [Carlisle Barracks, PA]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 96. Ranquet, Robert. 1997. Think Tanks and the National Security Strategy Formulation Process: A Comparison of Current American and French Patterns. Acquisition Review Quarterly, Winter 1997. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/97arq/ranque.pdf 97. Reagan, R. 1988, National security strategy of the United States Oxford: Pergamon Brasseys International. 98. Republicansforhumility.com. 2006. Rhetoric & Reality - Origins & Goals of the Bush National Security Strategy and the War in Iraq. Republicansforhumility. Com. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.republicansforhumility.com/rhetoric.html 99. Robinson, G. M. 2003. DETERRENCE AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY OF 2002: A ROUND PEG FOR A ROUND HOLE. Naval Postgraduate School. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cAgze4MX2BkJ:www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Robinson03.pdf+Thesis:+National+Security+Strategy+of+the+United+States&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=11 100. Sherwood – Randall, Elizabeth. 2006. Alliances and American National Security. Strategic Studies Institute, US Army. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=730 101. Smith, M. 2000, NATO enlargement during the Cold War: strategy and system in the Western alliance Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000. 102. Sokolski, H. & Army, W. C. 2000, Prevailing in a well-armed world: devising competitive strategies against weapons proliferation [Carlisle Barracks, Pa.]: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. 103. Sokolsky, R., Rabasa, A., & Neu, C. R. 2000, The role of Southeast Asia in U.S. strategy toward China Santa Monica, CA : Rand. 104. Stoler, M. A. 2000, Allies and adversaries: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Grand Alliance, and U.S. strategy in World War II Chapel Hill; London: University of North Carolina Press. 105. Tangredi, S. J. 2002, Globalization and maritime power Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. 106. The Executive Branch of the United States of America. 2002. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America – 2002. The Executive Branch of the United States of America. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-020920.pdf 107. The Executive Branch of the United States of America. 2006. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America – 2006. The Executive Branch of the United States of America. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf 108. The Princeton Project. 2006. Readings on United States National Security. Princeton University. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/rr/strategy.html 109. The Princeton Project. 2006. Working Group Reports - The Princeton Project on National Security. Princeton University. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ppns/conferences/reports/fall/index.html 110. Tow, W. T. 2001, Asia-Pacific strategic relations: seeking convergent security Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. 111. Tunjic, F. & Ministrstvo, z. o. 1997, Stability and security of Eastern and Southeastern Europe Ljubljana, Slovenia : Ministry of Defence, Center for Strategic Studies. 112. United States Joint Chiefs of Staff 2001, Essays 2001 Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press. 113. United States. Office of Homeland Security 2002, National strategy for homeland security [Washington, D.C.?]: Office of Homeland Security. 114. US Army War College, Security Studies Institute. 2006. Publications. US Army War College. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/year.cfm 115. Weston, David C. 2005. AN ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: IS THE ADMINISTRATION EFFECTIVELY HARNESSING INTERNATIONAL POWER? US Army War College. Retrieved: December 8, 2006. From: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil243.pdf 116. Wikipedia. 2006. National Security Strategy of the United States. Wikipedia. Retrieved: December 7, 2006. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Strategy_of_the_United_States 117. Yarger, H. R. & Army, W. C. 2006, Strategic theory for the 21st century: the little book on big strategy [Carlisle Barracks, Pa.]: Strategic Studies Institute. 118. Zelikow, P. 2001, American military strategy: memos to a president, 1st Ed. New York; London: W.W. Norton. Read More