The Bush National Security Strategy - Essay Example

A Critical Review: The Bush National Security Strategy One year after the unthinkable 9/11 terrorist attacks on the world’s center of power, Bush released on September 2002 his administration’s grand strategy: ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’. Being too provocative, encompassing, and ambitious, the Bush NSS became the center of academic debates, which some are to be critically reviewed in this paper. What They Say First, although articles under reviewed agree that Bush’s NSS is a departure from the traditional grand strategy of deterrence to a more aggressive strategy of preventive and preemptive war, they, however, differed in assessing the essence of Bush NSS document. In his paper ‘A Grand Strategy of Transformation’, Gaddis (n.d.) has seen Bush’s NSS “the most sweeping shift in US grand strategy since the beginning of the Cold War” (p.1), which he substantiated by illustrating its differences from Clinton’s December 1999 NSS wherein he finds Bush NSS “more forceful, more carefully crafted, and – unexpectedly – more multilateral than its immediate predecessor” (Ibid). On the contrary, Wirtz and Russell (2003) believe that although Bush calls on a strategic shift from deterrence to preventive and preemptive war, varied international considerations may paradoxically push the Bush administration to rather “strengthen deterrence and existing international institutions, two outcomes that are not necessarily high on the administration’s agenda” (p. 113). Thus, essentially, it is no different from the former grand strategy. I agree with Wirtz and Russell that Bush grand strategy is no different from that of deterrence, not because of its practicality in this present international context, but because, all US grand strategies, including Bush’s, only reaffirm the American consensual view on their supremacy; thus, all strategy’s should pursue only one thing – to ensure US hegemony unchallenged. Second, in defining the adversary, all of the articles commonly regard terrorism – specifically Al-Qaeda – the most ambitious, most ruthless, and most capable among terrorist groups – the most dangerous imminent adversary of U.S. today. However, it was Posen (2001), who had clearly described Al-Qaeda’s motive – that Al-Qaeda’s hatred of US comes from the following: the US meddling on the affairs of the Muslim nations in the Middle East; its imposed interest on the Persian Gulf and Middle East; its imposition of its Western culture that is diametrically opposed to Islam – all these result to the suffering of the Muslim peoples and worst, the desecration of the Islamic holy places and contamination of the Muslim culture – an unforgivable crime to Al-Qaeda (p. 40). However, they differ in their focus of assessment on this matter. The most comprehensive of them is Wirtz and Russell who tried to explain the underlying reason the Bush administration characterizes today’s US security challenge differently: “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination” (The National Security Strategy of the USA, 2002, p. 1) and how these enemies cannot be deterred, thus deserve prevention and preemption. Wirtz and Russell, carefully analyze the implications of these two strategies as to the over all components of Bush NSS, specifically in relation to the US diplomatic relations as it tries to protect the balance of power with the US at the center. Moreover they did not believe that Bush would really use these strategies – which history proved them right – because Bush never did use preventive and preemptive war against what he defined as enemies: the terrorist organizations and rogue states who are developing and possessing weapons of mass destruction and are capable of harboring and supporting terrorists. “Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – nuclear, biological and chemical – in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenge facing the United States” (National Strategy to Combat WMD, 2002, p. 1). On the other hand, the article “Dealing with the ‘axis of evil’” is the most critical of them all in assessing the defined enemy and the strategy, as it sharply presented the critics of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ identified as “Iraq, Iran, and North Korea” (Dealing with the ‘axis of evil’, 2002, p. 1). Critics essentially question the wisdom of conflating terrorists with rogue states specifically the ‘axis of evil’ as each of these nations poses different challenges that has to be addressed differently (p. 2), and as the “policy of pre-emption cannot be equally applied to terrorists and rogue states” (p. 1). The difference lies in the legitimate use of preemption – “Preemption against terrorists – assuming that the necessary intelligence is obtained – is widely viewed as legitimate and necessary… Yet, preemption against states developing WMD raises more difficult issues (Ibid). Looking back, the critics stand correct. The US failure in locating WMD, specifically Saddam’s alleged biological weapons in Iraq has weakened the legitimacy of Bush’s call for military campaign against rogue states. On the other hand Gaddis presented the hidden agenda of Bush’s keen interest on rogue states specifically Iraq: Bush grand strategy is no other than “transforming the entire Muslim Middle East: for bringing it, once and for all, into the modern world” (p. 4). Third, these articles actually complement each other, agreeing that the use of force should be dealt with precision – reliable intelligence, in high moral ground – justified in all fronts, and internationally accepted. Because all agreed, that the abuse of force would only lead to more grievous consequences more harmful to US. What They Did Not Say What the articles did not tackle are the following questions: Who created the monsters ruthlessly waging harm to the world today? Where did the WMD originate? Why has Al-Qaeda become so sophisticated and ambitious? In other words, none of the articles attempts to root out the problem. Because in my view, what the Bush administration addressed in its grand strategy is only the evident effect of a deeper problem – a problem that goes back to the US itself, which in its arrogant campaign in maintaining and asserting its supremacy over the world has in fact created these monsters that it is facing right now. References Dealing with the ‘axis of evil’.(2002). The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 8 (5), 1-2. Gaddis, Lewis John. (n.d.). A grand strategy of transformation. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2002). Office of the President of the United sates of America. The Whitehouse, Washington. Posen, Barry R. (2001). The struggle against terrorism. Grand strategy, strategy, and tactics. International Security, 26 (3), 39-55. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. (2002). Office of the President of the United States of America. The Whitehouse, Washington. Wirtz, James J. and Russell, James A. (2003). Viewpoint: U.S. policy on preventive war and preemption. The Nonproliferation Review. Spring, 113-123. Read More