Global Terrorism and Military Preemption: Policy Problems and Normative Perils
- PDF / 139,883 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 33 Downloads / 199 Views
Global Terrorism and Military Preemption: Policy Problems and Normative Perils1 Charles W. Kegley Jr.a and Gregory A. Raymondb a Pearce Professor of International Relations, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. E-mail: [email protected] b Honors College, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
The Bush administration has shifted from the six-decade US national security strategy of containment to one based on what is called forward deterrence. Consequently, the president now claims for the United States ‘the prerogative of using force preemptively and unilaterally, however its interests dictate’. This represents the most sweeping reformulation of US strategy in over half a century. The result, however, will only erode America’s reputation and squander its ability to exercise leadership on pressing global issues. International Politics (2004) 41, 37–49. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800064 Keywords: preemption; forward deterrence; 9/11; George Bush
‘Preemption has risen in the hierarchy of options a bit because of the devastating threats posed by terrorists. It must be used with great care and judiciousness and with a clear understanding of the obligations that we have as a responsible member of the international community.’ (US Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, September 8, 2002)
Introduction In his speech accepting the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan lamented that humanity had ‘entered the third millennium through a gate of fire’ (Gourevitch, 2003, 52). The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon 3 months earlier had shattered the widespread belief that globalization was ushering in a peaceful and prosperous era. ‘The prospect of another attack,’ warned US Vice President Dick Cheney, ‘is not a matter of if, but when.’ Upon hearing the administration’s concern, print and broadcast media in the United States focused the public’s attention on asymmetric warfare, where the armed forces of sovereign states would engage the irregular units of global terrorist networks. ‘America is full of fear,’ proclaimed a jubilant Osama bin Laden in the taped message he transmitted in the wake of the terrorist attacks. ‘Nobody in the United States will feel safe.’2
Charles W. Kegley and Gregory A. Raymond Global Terrorism and Military Preemption
38
Fear is a great motivator. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 tragedy, US President George W. Bush had ample reasons to fear terrorists with global reach, who now seemed capable of striking virtually anywhere at almost any time. The United States was vulnerable. Geography and political boundaries posed no barriers to these unconventional threats. To address this problem, the Bush administration shifted from the six-decade US national security strategy of containment to one based on what it called ‘forward deterrence.’ Its goals were to eliminate gathering dangers before they became fully formed, and therein dissuade others from contemplating attacks on the United States. In short, the pr
Data Loading...
