Share this story
Close X
Switch to Desktop Site

Where antiterror doctrine leads

Bush lays groundwork for striking first at nations with weapons of mass destruction.

About these ads

One bright afternoon in June 1981, Israeli F-16 jets streaked low across the Iraqi desert. Spotting the gleaming domes of the unfinished Osiraq nuclear reactor, the pilots decimated it with bombs - a bold preemptive strike in the name of self-preservation.

The world reaction to the strike was swift and critical, with the United States and the rest of the UN Security Council unanimously condemning it.

But now, two decades later, the Bush administration - warning of time-bomb terrorists and the spread of deadly mass weapons - proposes a far more open-ended, sweeping use of preemptive force than Israel's.

In a controversial expansion of the Bush doctrine - the unilateralist "with us or with the terrorists" foreign policy that followed Sept. 11 - the administration is making a stark argument for striking first.

"Defending against terrorism and other emerging 21st century threats may well require that we take the war to the enemy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week in a speech at the National Defense University.

In one extreme scenario - one nevertheless under consideration by US officials - the Bush administration could claim the right to overthrow the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein preemptively. The goal: to prevent Hussein - alone or through terrorists - from threatening the United States or its allies with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

"This is absolutely a new wrinkle," says Kurt Campbell, of the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "There has been no presidential doctrine on terrorism before now."

I contrast, over the past 20 years, American military strikes against terrorist targets have been limited and for the most part retaliatory:


Page:   1   |   2   |   3

Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.