Pentagon plans new defense strategy for nation

March 25, 2005
by Dennis Ryan
Pentagram staff writer

The last Quadrennial Defense Review issued in 2001 set size limits and priorities for the armed forces of the United States to be able to fight two major wars simultaneously, besides performing other smaller duties. Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense and Rear Adm. William Sullivan addressed the media at the Pentagon March 18 to discuss the release of the new National Defense Strategy.

The National Defense Strategy cites four major threats to the United States: traditional, irregular, catastrophic and disruptive. Traditional challenges are posed by well known and recognized military powers using "well-understood' forms of war.

...

Feith stressed the importance of "building partnership capacity" with other countries.

The paper outlined four major strategic objectives. Securing the United States from direct attack is first on the list.

...

Two of the main threats will come from "problem states" and "non-state actors." The document refers to "problem states" as those who "disregard international law and violate international agreements." The non-state actors are described as "a diverse collection of terrorists, insurgents, paramilitaries and criminals who seek to undermine the legitimate governance of some states and who challenge the United States and its interests."
more
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/10_12/national_news/33962-1.html

By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ
Crimson Staff Writer
Bush’s Terrorism Policies Preserve Our Civil Liberties


Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith ’75 fended off hecklers, protesters, and cries of condemnation last night during a speech defending the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and strategy in fighting terrorism.

Speaking to a largely hostile audience gathered at Harvard’s Institute of Politics (IOP), Feith—the third-highest official at the Department of Defense—addressed issues from civil liberties to the Middle East.

In the speech, Feith said the United States must make an effort to delegitimize terrorism by making it an evil as reviled as slavery.

“To defeat our enemies in this war, we will have to do more than disrupt and attack—we’ll have to counter their ideology,” he said.

more
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=506183

“To defeat our enemies in this war, we will have to do more than disrupt and attack—we’ll have to counter their ideology,” he said.

**********

Isn't this exactly the tactic the neocons have taken against progressives, liberals, greens?

Any doubt we're at war here at home?

:nuke:

:scared:

The document refers to "problem states" as those who "disregard international law and violate international agreements."

Well, at least we have taken the first step. We not only have admitted the problem. We admit we ARE the problem.

Feith as "the dumbest man on the planet?" That was in Frank's book I believe. His book was published well before Franks LIED to the media during the Presidential campaign ... stating verbatim that "they were not certain" that Bin Laden was in Tora Bora. Lie!

What maroons! = Both Feith and Franks. :P

the nation's defense?:eyes:

1. United States. 2. Israel. 3. North Korea. 4.Pakistan. 5. Kazakhstan and so on.

The pentagon policy announcement is posted at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3296202

It's archived now, having received all of ONE reply.

Sorry I missed it.

:hi:

This has inspired me to re-post it. Last time it died in GD. I've re-posted it in POLITICS - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1686257#

We're all in this together.

The USA's Tragic Withdrawal From the Rule of Law: Pentagon Confirms Unilateral Pre-emptive Strikes Are Now U.S. Policy

The entire world must be wondering WHY the Pentagon's wildly-irrational language conflates diplomatic and legal challenges to US policy in international forums with terrorism? It's bad enough that the scofflaw Bush administration has resorted to grossly mischaracterizing Western civilization's time-honored international conflict-resolution methods as "challenges" which MUST BE DETERRED AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY. Nevertheless, it gets even worse.

During a Pentagon news conference on 3-18-05, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith removed all doubt about the fascistic nature of these new policies when he clarified points from the document, titled "The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America."

Quoth the wild-eyed Feith: "There are various actors around the world that are looking to attack or constrain the United States, and they are going to find creative ways to do that, that are not the obvious conventional military attacks.... We need to think broadly about diplomatic lines of attack, legal lines of attack, all kinds of asymmetric warfare that various actors can use to try to constrain, shape our behavior." <4>

Consider Mr. Feith's absurdly-hypermilitarized Orwellian conflations, which are either criminally stupid or deliberately evil: (1) he defames diplomacy and adjudication by unjustly conflating them with insidious methods of "attack"; and (2) he inexplicably conflates any "actor" -- whether individual, group, or national -- who contends that America must honor its treaty obligations with "asymmetric warfare" against the USA, despite the fact that duly-ratified treaties are "the supreme law of the land" under Article VI of the United States Constitution

more
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=s3714&l=i&size=1&hd=0

The craziness is here to stay it seems.

'The document refers to "problem states" as those who "disregard international law and violate international agreements." '

Is that how we get around that issue?

You should apply for a job at the Pentagon's international law division. :-)

The Natinal Defense Straragy of The United States of America
a twenty-four page PDF file with lots of interesting stuff:

www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds1.pdf

I would copy, paste, and share some of the nuggets I found, but I can't seem to break the mysteries of PDF files to do it.
Please go over and read it...

PNAC is now policy!

on 9/11, I assumed there wasn't one.

the world cuts off the oil? Frankly, I am surprised
they haven't already done so.

I just wondered here amid all-Shiavo-all-the-time media coverage.

And to continue with fat contracts to Raytheon, Boeing and the Corp. that runs this nation, Lockheed-Martin

US military uses 15 million gallons of fuel per day in Iraq

MR. FEITH: I don't think I agree with your terminology. What I was saying is one of the key strategic messages that the secretary is giving the department through the National Defense Strategy is that people should be thinking not simply how to react to events when those events have already become big problems or wars, but what kinds of actions do we want to take now to help shape an international environment so that problems are less likely to become crises. And through early action we can sometimes prevent a crisis from becoming a war -- I mean, the kind of intervention that was done in Haiti. The kind of early intervention that was done on the humanitarian operation for the tsunami was an example of doing something quickly so that a large problem doesn't get exacerbated because of the failure to act.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1686257#1686440