Terrorism and the New
National Defense Strategy of the US
By Adam Williams
www.dissidentvoice.org
On March 18,
the Pentagon released the new “National Defense Strategy of the United
States of America,” (NDS) a sixteen page guide to US military policy
outlining both the strategic objectives and the methods of attaining those
objectives. While John Bolton’s new UN ambassadorship and “the U.S.
withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
for cases involving the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” on their
own make the case for that the US remains in a unilateralist stance, Jim
Lobe, writing for the Inter-Press Service, contends that the new document
solidifies the continuation. Concentrating on the unilateralist aspects of
the document misses the grim reality contained within. Unilateralism may
be the means by which the strategic objectives presented can be met, but
those means are not the objectives themselves.
Section II of
the NDS lists the four strategic objectives:
(1) secure the
United States from direct attack,
(2) secure
strategic access and retain global freedom of action,
(3) strengthen
alliances and partnerships and
(4) establish
favorable security conditions.
While (1) and
(3) are reasonable, traditional strategic military objectives -- though,
as Lobe points out, in the case of the US, (3) may not get the traditional
interpretation it would in other countries -- (2) and (4) require a deeper
look. It is not all together clear what securing “strategic access” and
retaining “global freedom” means. Nor is it clear what those “favorable
security conditions” actually entail. In this article, I hope to show that
the NDS makes a dangerous and trigger-happy commitment by the US to global
socio-economic and military system that spawns terrorism -- the very
threat which it document contends the US military strategy should be
designed to eliminate.
The most
striking feature of the entire document, and the strategic objectives in
particular, is the fact that “freedom of action for the United States” is
now a key tenet in US foreign policy. While the NDS makes no attempt to
clarify what this tenet means -- likely for PR purposes -- a commitment to
protecting the sovereignty of nations is repeatedly made. That does mean,
however, the US is willing to allow other nations “freedom of action.” The
kicker is that the US commitment to sovereignty is made with heavy
qualifications. Nation-states must “exercise their sovereignty
responsibly.” This implies a dual role for the US, one of which may help
clarify as well as warrant US “freedom of action.” First, the document
suggests it is the job of the US to interpret what it means for a
nation-state to act responsibly, and, secondly, it is the job of the US to
enforce breaches in responsibility. To be the enforcer, the US requires a
“freedom of action” where other countries do not.
While a
military enforcer is one way to interpret the claim, it may not be a fully
sufficient understanding of what we should take “freedom of action” to
mean. “Securing strategic access” is placed along side “freedom of action”
as a key objective. And like the tenet of “freedom of action”, the NDS
does not elaborate as to what “securing strategic access” means beyond
calling it “access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global
commons.” With “freedom of action” and a mandate to “secure strategic
access” to “commons,” such as oil, the NDS appears justify the US invading
a nation for oil. One needs speculate very little to see how this could
easily endorse military action to give US corporations access to valuable
commons such as oil in Iraq and natural gas in Afghanistan. Under these
guidelines, however, invasion would still be contingent on those commons
not being available on the global free-market.
Hence, the
objective to “protect the integrity of the international economic system”
as well as a larger commitment to (4) -- “establish(ing) favorable
security conditions.” Unlike “freedom of action” and “strategic access”,
the NDS does state very clearly what those favorable conditions are: “Such
conditions include the effective and responsible exercise of sovereignty,
representative governance, peaceful resolution of regional disputes, and
open and competitive markets.” Responsible use of sovereignty does simply
include democratic institutions and respecting the sovereignty of other
nations states, but also a free-market economy. On these grounds Saddam
Hussein was acting irresponsibly not simply by being undemocratic, but
also by not providing oil on the international market.
Under the new
National Defense Strategy, US military intervention is justified on
numerous levels. While the traditional objectives of preventing direct
attacks on the US and its allies are included, there are also new military
objectives. According to the document, applying military means to a
sovereign nation-state to force it to open its markets and “commons” is a
legitimate action. That nation need not threaten its neighbors, the
greater political stability of the nation, its own people, or deny its
citizens representative government to warrant US military action. While
these conditions are still present, the lack of a free-market economy has
been added to the list.
With the US
military strength being what it is, the US can afford to impose this
framework of military action. The US can afford the “freedom of action,”
which is now key in US military policy. But at what price? When the US
wishes to enforce the world order -- and states its intentions as such --
it locks itself into an unbeatable game. Under the US-led capitalist
system, which the US seeks to make the exclusive political-economic
framework, the problems that have plagued us this far, will continue to
plague us. The 9/11 attacks were indeed perpetrated by those who wish to
destroy the American imposed world order. Further promotion and expansion
of that world order -- now with even looser conditions justifying military
action - will only continue to breed terrorism. While the NDS does indeed
represent a reaffirmation of US unilateralism, it also represents a
reaffirmation of the conditions by which terrorism spawns. Those
conditions are the relentless imposition of American values on the rest of
the world. Being a US citizen that respects the autonomy of others now is
the time to dissent.
Adam Williams studies political science and philosophy at Indiana
University, and works part-time as a computer programmer. Currently, he is
working his a senior honors thesis about representational nativism. He can
be reached at:
adjwilli@yahoo.com .
March 29, 2005
Reposted by
Bulatlat
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.