Sobering up on Pre-Emption

Remove all ads!

After hearing excerpts of the Bush-Kerry duel I reflected a little on Bush's sullen remark on pre-emption and Iraq - that "a president must always be willing to use troops," but only "as a last resort." Interesting remark.

The Bush administration continues to insist that the doctrine remains U.S. policy. It has a number of elements, including an insistence that any state that supports terrorists will be considered an enemy, that the United States has the right to attack such countries pre-emptively -- even, as in the case of Iraq, before an enemy has mounted a challenge or the president feels there is an imminent threat of an attack.
Under the doctrine, the United States would also act to prevent any country from even attempting to match American military might.

Pre-emptive attacks have been tools of American policy for a long time. President John F. Kennedy threatened a pre-emptive attack during the Cuban missile crisis; President Bill Clinton launched pre- emptive bombing strikes against suspected al Qaeda targets in Sudan.
What is new is that, in response to the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration articulated a strategy in which the United States, anticipating possible future terrorist attacks, would strike long before they could be mounted. The era of containment and quiet diplomacy was over, the new strategy suggested.

Today the unwanted and unplanned for occupation of Iraq (the Bush administration evidently imagined a s ort of plug & play invasion instead) binds dome 140.000 US troops in Iraq, plus tens of thousands of logistics troops out of theatre and tens of thousands or reserves -- troops that cannot be used otherwise -- say against Iran, Syria or North-Korea. Strained by their ongoing missions the US armed forces simply don't have the flexibility anymore to do more. These are facts.

Iraq is going to leave a legacy - because the Bush crew fumbled that war the US population is going to be less enthusiastic about further adventures of that sort -- seemingly there IS a risk in this sort of business, despite the overwhelming technological superiority of the US over every perceivable enemy.

That leaves the US in an odd situation: they have the most powerful military on earth -- think about stealth bombers, nuclear powered submarines and supercarriers, high tech infantry gear, Abrahams tanks and whatever -- and the perception is that the US are invincible, and indeed every enemy meeting the US on a level playing field is likely to get his ass handed.
Despite that the US had to find out (a) rag-tag militias are inflicting painful losses on US troops (yes their losses are much worse, but they don't care) (b) that despite that they have insufficient manpower for the sort of missions Bush wanted and (c) that the US are in fact not willing to accept the significant losses that might be necessary to achieve the ... very ambitious ... political goals the administration lined out.
I do not think it is likely that the US public is thrilled about the thought of sending draftees, their precious sons and daughters, abroad to help or control what they see as thankless primitives anyway - Iraqis, Syrians or Iranians - that means that also in long term the US will not have the manpower and political will in the population to pull off the sort of things Bush's pre-emption doctrine wants.

That I think means - the US behaves as if they were an omnipotent superpower while in fact they aren't. Their power is limited. They don't have the manpower needed. The troops sure do the best they can but still the task requires more troops than the US are able to provuide. The US don't have the will needed to accept heavy losses.
They do need allies. They can't go it alone. The US taking on the rest of the "axis of evil" after stranding on the shores of in Iraq? Unlikely.

If anything the US are likely to launch small-scale pre-emptive strikes as needed in the future, much as Israel does against its enemies, but not the kind of large-scale attacks that were at the center of the Bush doctrine's aim of pressuring enemies to change or risk being destroyed.

That has serious consequences for the doctrine of pre-emption: Thanks to Iraq it has become an empty threat because the possible enemies well know that the US are unable to back up their threats with action.

With attacking Iraq pre-emption has failed: Rather than be cowed by President Bush's earlier hints, or by the U.S. invasion of Iraq, both Iran and North Korea have defied international demands, and both appear to be developing nuclear weapons, without any indication that the president might seek to resort to a pre-emptive attack. He can't and Iran and North-Korea know it.
In the presidential debate Thursday night, President Bush emphasized multilateral talks, involving China, to resolve the North Korea crisis, and Bush has looked primarily to European negotiators to deal with Iran. That's a mucznmore humble tone than his previous sabre rattling about regime change.
Good news if this means the news found their way into Bush's mind, but maybe he was just reiterating talking points.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., made a good point when she said that "Pre-emption is valid only if you have a situation where you are about to be attacked. In my view, it is not useful in the war on terror."

The most apparent flaw of Bush's use of pre-emption was that he didn't understand that it is just a tool that may be viable for certain situations but totally unsuitable as a general policy.
Pre-emption is about dealing with worst case scenarios - you cannot apply worst case scenario solutions to everyday problems without being perceived as a paranoid whacko. That IMO is a root cause of today's US image problem.

The administration said that its aim in invading Iraq was, in part, to send a message to other hostile governments, as well as removing Saddam Hussein from power. Officials suggested that it was intended to let countries like Syria, Iran and even North Korea know that the United States had the capability and the will to launch rapid pre-emptive attacks to eliminate any challenges. It was also said to be an effort to spread democratic reforms throughout the Middle East, creating a kind of bandwagon effect, beginning with the democratization of Iraq.

Bush has undermined the credibility not only of US threats by disabling the US military to carry them out by forcing them into Iraq, he has also undermined the credibility of US claims by arguing that Iraq was an imminent threat and that it was armed with weapons of mass destruction. It wasn't. Today only Bush & Fox devotees and vice-president Cheney seriously believe in that Iraq had WMD.

In fact - Bush's use of pre-emption has made the US impotent in face of new emerging threats - the military is strained to the breaking point and simply overtasked. Worse still, in face of fundamentalist arab terror Bush managed to inflame anti-US sentiment in the arab world to white heat. With his babbling of Iraq as an imminent threat - it wasn't - he ruined US credibility that would help them win allies for their causes.

Bush's pre-emptive war on Iraq DID make the US less safe.

[ October 03, 2004, 12:13: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Impotent in the face of new emerging threats ? I see you clearly underestimate the power and determination of the US military. And it's not the first time a German made that mistake.

 

I suggest that the only reasons that America is having problems are their need to occupy Iraq, and the fact that "Shock and Awe" was designed to make Iraq forces run away instead of die. Where did the Republican Guard go? You can see them on Al - Jazeera (if it wasnt closed) beheading people. However, if America needed to instigate "regime change" in Iran or North Korea, militarily they have certainly got the power. The american military is designed specifically to "fight and win two major theatre wars at once". That is it's design brief. Just because its the election there, there is no political will right now, but a freshly elected candidate will be much less wary of political consequences in several years time - the "public" is a stupid and forgetful creature as a whole.

"America is like.. A big dog on a short leash", and because it will not break the leash, some think it powerless, so they come within the reach of the leash. Bad mistake.

 

There is a huge difference between beating a regime and pacifying an entire country which noticed in Iraq now. Technical superiority is enough to go in now, vast numerical superiority is needed to control the ground. The US military is unable to put enough grunts on the ground. They simply do not have them.

 

Oh YES. Exactly. Also, in additon to my earlier post, there is an awful lot of people willing to die in Iraq.

FYI, The American government is after one of their main sources of information that said there were WMD in Iraq, saying that he is actually working for Iran. If thats true.... The perfect intelligence operation - Get someone you dont like to bash up someone you like a lot less, they take the casualites (as well as a certain result) and then you send people over the border to say "Kill the Infidel!" Then you get quite a lot of money as well as removing Saddam and damaging the US. Perfect.

 

@Yirimyah
The American army is one (if not the) biggest army one earth. However North Korea is also one of the biggest army around. Any war against them would be won, but only at a huge cost in personel and equipment.
Iran is better equiped and bigger than Iraq and has its own army as well as the Revolutionary Guard, both of which are motivated by idology rather that bullying and blood money like Iraq's army.

For all his talk Bush could not do anything to change either regiems without a major war involving thousands of reserist and consrips.

 

@ Leppi

In terms of sheer numbers, North Korea's army is actually larger than the United States' Army. They have a military requirement for all men (and maybe even women but I'm not sure on that). At the very least every male must put in a couple of years in the military, and as a result, their army numbers 1 million strong. Now, that is obviously different that a professional military that we have - currently about half a million in the army. However, our army is currently all volunteer, so if you start going into war after war after war, you can imagine that getting new volunteers becomes increasingly more difficult.

 

Yup, people arent nearly as keen on volunteering for military service when they can actually risk getting into combat. You lose out on many of those "brain" volunteers, the engineers, the techs and such. You can always fool morons but the people joining the military for education and experience will think twice before joining a military which is very active.

 

@Leppi:
I agree with you about the North Korean army, however if you read my post more carefully you will see that I also made a point (echoed by joacqin) that defeat and occupation are vastly different things and in the field of technology America is the undisputed leader of the rest of the First World let alone places like North Korea and such technological superiority would go unanswered. As happened in Iraq, manning a SAM battery would become suicide very rapidly, and then since the American USAF is the best funded military organization in the world, they could afford to sit back and soak anything hostile in million - dollar warheads. Thermal sensors mean that tanks are death-traps due to hot engines et cetera. They do not even need high technology for that - just old F111's with infrared sights and normal JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munition)
For those (admitted) nuclear weapons, american "bunker - buster" warheads can easily cut through reinforced concrete. See the "Rose Garden" bunker in Iraq? Tens of metres underground, but still annhilated.
I still hold the opinion that the American miltary would be able to force regime change in North Korea.

Sounds like the Republican Guard. Ever heard of a self - deprecating army? No, me either. My points are equally applicable to them.

 

General consensus seems to be that the ground forces of the US are hard pressed to keep up with the current campaigns. Plus, the grunts are nowhere as effective as the US air force, especially in peacekeeping.
Not that I know much of its military capacities but this I hear on our news. It is also said that occupying a much more powerful and populous nation such as Iran is out of the question - unless the US is to withdraw its forces from Iraq. The consequences would be devastating.
One of the (random) reasons for this war given by the US administration was to show strength against the forces of eeevil, imposing the superior morals of the West on other nations - aka exporting democracy. How impotent would it make them look if this mission failed, especially to the arabian world.
Furthermore the islamists/extremists/whoever would be quick to exploit this, claiming it their victory. Might be like the wind under their wings.
So, no more invading... errr liberating of rogue nations until Iraq is a secure, stable nation (as if that is to happen).

And yes, even with Iraq in turmoil the US has more than enough spare firepower to level other nations - possibly even of the First World. But thats not the point, I think. How would it go over with the international community if there was heavy bombing of nations, but no stepping in to bring about stability afterwards? Who would support something like this? Unthinkable.

Therefore I think Ragusa is right. The US is bound to Iraq, its fight against terrorism, evil or whatnot hampered because of it. The rest of the world knows it. Nice blunder, Bush.

 

Pacman,
seemingly you misunderstood my point.

as Joa said it

and I think as I said it as well

The US threats of regime change against Iran and North Korea cannot be backed up with credibility atm.

Sure the US can still deal out one hell of a beating, with airforce and navy especially, but as joa said, doing that and controlling a conquered hostile country and its political future is quite another thing.

As a matter of fact - with fumbling Iraq the US have overextended their land forces "Hear, hear!" would Gen. Shinseki say They cannot mess with Iran atm, because of their vulnerable lines of communication in Iraq, and because the Iranians have not been crippled by embargos and sanctions - they would be a real effort. Plus, Iran would sure start to meddle in Iraq too, along the line: Our defense better begins there than here. Fighting an insurgeny in Iraq and a major war against Iran at the same time - another cakewalk - like Iraq?

Same for North Korea - if the US would become serious about regime change there Kim could and would kill a million South-Koreans by lunch and flatten Seoul - using conventional weapons (Seoul is in N.K. artillery range). US forces from Korea have been sent to the gulf too iirc.
Maybe that went unnoticed in the discussion - but US foreign policy affects the rest of the world, too. There are others who might like to have a say, too. South-Korea sure would. The South-Koreans have already said no-thank-you to Mr. Bushes efforts to confront Kim and prefer solutions with less escalation potential and prefer negotiations -- as they would be the ones to do the dieing for Bush's policy, pay the bill and do the reconstruction work in the possibly radioactive rubble of their cities that is understandable.

All that, with America's strained landforces in mind, tells me: War or military action of the scale of the invasion of Iraq against any major player atm and after the election is very unlikely.

My point was:
The US simply don't have the troops for that sort of game atm. Sure, the US could, if they wanted, field a huge army of draftees. But I don't think they will.

The wonderful irony of the situation is that Bush, by putting pre-emptive regime change into practice, has rendered his country unable to continue on that path as long as Iraq isn't done - and Iraq to me seems pretty pretty far away from being finished anytime soon.
The bitter part is that the Iraqis and US troops pay the price for Bush's follies - just check here for some of their rosy pre-war statements.

If they put the same expertise to work on Iran or North-Korea it'll mean the end of the US superpower status