William Wagner medicine forum Guru
Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 809
|
Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject:
OT Heart beat erratic OT ,perhaps Iım normal OT
|
|
|
Published on Saturday, March 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Policy OKs First Strike to Protect US
Pentagon strategic plan codifies unilateral, preemptive attacks. The
doctrine marks a shift from coalitions such as NATO, analysts say
by John Hendren
WASHINGTON - Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon
has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching
preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the
United States.
Respected global organizations seem to be viewed with suspicion. In
describing the vulnerabilities of the United States, the document uses
strong language to list international bodies - such as the International
Court of Justice, created under a treaty that the United States has
declined to sign - alongside terrorists.
Douglas Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy, unveiled a new US
defense strategy that calls for preemptive military action. (AFP/File)
The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use "active
deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can" but could act
unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said.
The changes codify the more assertive defense policy adopted by the
Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks and are included in a
"National Military Strategy" and "National Defense Strategy," reports
that are part of a comprehensive review of military strategy conducted
every four years.
"The president has the obligation to protect the country," said Douglas
J. Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy. "And I
don't think that there's anything in our Constitution that says that the
president should not protect the country unless he gets some
non-American's participation or approval of that."
Pentagon managers use the strategic plan to guide such decisions as
where to place bases, which bases to eliminate, what weapons to buy and
where to position them. The heads of the United States' regional
commands across the globe, in turn, use the strategy to prioritize
spending and form strategies for eliminating threats in their regions.
"The potentially catastrophic impact of an attack against the United
States, its allies and its interests may necessitate actions in
self-defense to preempt adversaries before they can attack," the
National Military Strategy states. A previous version, compiled in 1997,
did not include plans for preemptive attacks.
However, Feith said that the United States would for the first time
invite close allies such as the United Kingdom to review classified
portions of U.S. defense strategy as part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review, a four-year military policy and spending plan.
But the new strategy document further shifts the nation from the Cold
War strategy of containing Eastern Europe to a global strategy of taking
on enemies that emerge unexpectedly - as the administration argues
Afghanistan did after the Sept. 11 attacks - and even terrorist
organizations within friendly nations.
It appears to move the nation further from reliance on such
international coalitions as NATO and more toward what Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld has called "coalitions of the willing" under clear
American leadership, analysts said.
"NATO is kind of missing in action now in their strategy," said Loren
Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a public
policy group in Arlington, Va. "During the Clinton years coalition
warfare with the other members of NATO was a centerpiece to our
strategy, and now the administration is expecting almost nothing from
the Europeans."
In some cases, respected global organizations seem to be viewed with
suspicion. In describing the vulnerabilities of the United States, the
document uses strong language to list international bodies - such as the
International Court of Justice, created under a treaty that the United
States has declined to sign - alongside terrorists.
"Our strength as a nation-state will continue to be challenged by those
who employ a strategy of the weak using international [forums], judicial
processes and terrorism," the document states.
The concern, Feith explained, was that some nations would try to
criminalize American foreign policy by challenging it in international
courts.
During the Cold War, the United States used the United Nations and the
North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in an effort to build world consensus
against anticipated threats from the Chinese and the now dissolved
Soviet bloc. The new strategy highlights the United States' increasing
inability to predict where the next conflict will occur, Feith said.
"I don't think that the world gives us the luxury of picking areas,"
Feith said. "We have interests all over the world. I dare say that if
anybody before September 11, 2001, was listing places that we would want
to focus on as a matter of priority, Afghanistan would have been rather
low on the list."
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
FAIR US
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the
US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
--
Zone 5 S Jersey USA Shade
"oeuf tôt pique " Lover
"Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but
that's not why we do it." -- Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics) |
|