Bush Preemptive Strike Doctrine Under Review, May Be Discarded

Source: Bloomberg

Oct. 15 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon is reviewing the Bush administration’s doctrine of preemptive military strikes with an eye to modifying or possibly ending it.

The international environment is “more complex” than when President George W. Bush announced the policy in 2002, Kathleen Hicks, the Defense Department’s deputy undersecretary for strategy, said in an interview. “We’d really like to update our use-of-force doctrine to start to take account for that.”

The Sept. 11 terrorist strikes prompted Bush to alter U.S. policy by stressing the option of preemptive military action against groups or countries that threaten the U.S. Critics said that breached international norms and set a dangerous precedent for other nations to adopt a similar policy.

The doctrine is being reassessed as part of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review of strategy, force structure and weapons programs. Hicks is overseeing the review.

“We are looking very explicitly at use of force and use of forces,” she said. “We are looking at how to articulate the use of the U.S. military instrument -- how we use military force to achieve national objectives.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aw4BqFAVbkf8

Makes this whole doctrine passe.

Not to mention we can't really afford it.

I grew up with the US having a "no first strike" policy.

The Bush Cheney Gang thought themselves too great to be constrained by ethics, international law, US law, or any codes of justice.

And gee, maybe they were that great-- they are still not in jail for their torture and war profiteering.

AND you'd expect them to start up the proceedings to hold those murderers accountable.

But no one's doing that.

The Bush Cheney gang still seems to have sympathizers in high places.

There is so much wreckage from Bush Gang Rule to clean up.

Yes I still want full prosecution of the Bush Cheney gang.

But President Obama has made some significant changes in our diplomatic posture, enough to earn him the Nobel Prize.

I'm also glad to see the Obama Administration seriously considering returning our country to a No First Strike policy.

and they'll be even more emboldened, knowing the precedent of "no prosecutions" has been set.

things have worked out so well with it.

This should be the easiest god damned decision Obama has had to make since getting elected. I'm surprised it made it this long.

As one asshole once said to another asshole... "This is a slam dunk."

Rp

"That doctrine was always at odds with international law and norms" -- duh.

Now if we can just get around to the idea that the people that ordered "preemptive military strikes" are guilty of war crimes and need to be prosecuted, we might have a moral ground to stand upon.

"Mommy, mommy, he's scaring me."

"It's ok Billie, just go shoot him in the head and he won't bother you anymore."

Btw, what ever happened to enforcing our laws and treaties requiring us to prosecute torture? Sigh.

Hardly worth bothering with in the macho, he-man world of action dudes like Dim Son, Crash Cart, Turd Blossom and Fredo.

"The international environment is 'more complex' than when President George W. Bush announced the policy in 2002, Kathleen Hicks, the Defense Department’s deputy undersecretary for strategy, said in an interview. 'We’d really like to update our use-of-force doctrine to start to take account for that.' "

In other words, Bush was right, but things have changed.

The Obama administration goes out of its way to make excuses for the Bush administration. For once I'd like to see them announce that they're changing a policy because it was just plain stupid, or evil, or illegal. Bipartisanship (and appeasement) is like a religion to this administration.

and not shove this down everyones' throats. This is following a traditional diplomatic approach where the process is the key. It is also completely different than the BushCo way of just doing things and screw processes. By taking their time they are rebuilding the process in addition to removing the policy.

What you're saying would be true in some circumstances. But when you're dealing with an especially dangerous and malevolent ideology, you either confront it head-on and crush it, or it will come back even stronger later... history has taught us this repeatedly. Recognizing the difference is crucial.

Off topic, but I noticed that your moniker is CatholicEdHead. Are you the director of religious education at a Catholic school? I was Catholic for many years.

did i miss that?

a good start towards dismantling more of the bush era.

What an interesting concept.

They'll keep it in place- its far too easy and convenient a thing to have lying around in case a quick excuse for an invasion is needed.

What a crock of shit.



It was a breach of "international norms" before September 11, 2001, AFTER 9-11-01 and it still is....and that point was never complex.

Just another way of pretending that "911" somehow excuses war crimes and crimes against humanity (& wars of of aggression)

than it was during the Bush years. But now we have a group in charge who understands this is not the comic book world that Dubya and Cheney imagined it was from their safe, and privileged perch,

for we don't use military force to achieve objectives, but for actual defense only. We'll use this “multilateral diplomacy” stuff to achieve long-term national objectives, but we've got to figure out how to word it in the law so future admins can't weasel out of it so easily.

:shrug:

on NYC, Chicago or LA - and we have the means to take them out, that we won't conduct a preemptive strike?

Are you saying that if Pakistan falls to extremists and they are preparing to employ their nukes - even against Indian or Israel - and we can prevent it, that we won't preempt it?

ROTFLMAO! President Obama will do it and would receive a 2nd Nobel for preventing a nuclear war.

You made it up. Try, y'know, actually reading the article.