#2
Krasnaya Zvezda
No. 175
October 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
MOSCOW VIEW OF THE NEW US MILITARY DOCTRINE
Military-political analysis
By Alexei LYASHCHENKO

The USA is changing its military doctrine from a policy of deterrence, adopted at the beginning of the Cold War, into a strategy of delivering preemptive strikes at countries that threaten US interests. This means that any state that dares to disobey Washington's demands may become the target of attack.

No Compromises

The new doctrine is formulated in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America elaborated by the White House. In fact, it proclaims the foreign policy of President Bush at least for the next two years, until the next presidential elections. It is indicative that the document is not abstract at all but will be binding for execution throughout the country.

The previous US president, Bill Clinton, formulated the country's foreign policy preferences in late 1999, when the USA was concerned with the problem of financial crises in Asia and Russia and wanted to strengthen a number of basic international treaties and agreements, in particular the 1972 ABM Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Kyoto Protocols. Logically enough, all these aspects were reflected in the Clinton Directive.

The new 33-page document of the Bush administration effectively buried all provisions of the Clinton Directive. George Bush Jr. has fulfilled at least one of his election promises by overhauling the US foreign policy (as proved by his new relationship with Russia and many US allies, as well as US disregard for world public opinion) and introducing several new elements.

For example, the USA stipulates the possibility of armed invasion for defence purposes of countries "before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction." The US military- political community has long been pondering the idea of preemptive strikes, which have been mentioned in many documents and reports of the Pentagon, including to the top leadership of the country. The idea has now become official.

One more novel element is that the Strategy is the first document to say openly that the USA will no longer allow any country or a union of countries to question the US military superiority, as it happened during the Cold War, or the US role of the global arbiter, which the Americans describe as US exclusiveness and great responsibility for the future of the world, which it assumed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the document also points out that Washington shall accept no compromises when the US national interests are put at stake.

The threats facing the USA have also changed officially. The doctrine says that today the threat to the USA comes not from conquest-seeking countries (the logic of the early period of US-Soviet confrontation) but rogue countries and terrorists.

It is indicative that the USA started gearing its armed forces to the new military doctrine even before it was adopted. In principle, this began before September 11 and the unprecedented terrorist attacks only accelerated the process.

At that time the Pentagon compared pending changes in the military doctrine to such stages in the military history as the mass production and use of tanks instead of cavalry. American generals believe that such changes call not only for careful preparations or a simple shift in the tactic and strategy of the use of armed forces, but also for a major change in the mentality, culture and even psychology that would facilitate effective use of novel technologies. The example that comes to mind is the growing use of digital communications and acquisition of intelligence information from satellites in real time, giving a prompt and reliable view of the adversary's weak points and suggesting the best action in the given situation.

In the time that elapsed since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon has been actively testing its actions within the framework of the future doctrine. In the past year the US troops held and took part in over 40 major exercises and manoeuvres across the world. The spotlight is on the US presence in the Far and Middle East, Central Asia, Latin America, the Balkans and the Caspian region, which is all across the world, as well as on the neutralisation of threats to the US internal security. Take the Caspian scenario of exercises, where contradictions between countries that want to gain access to regional oil and gas have come to a head and these states are actually balancing at the edge of war. When attempts to settle the crisis politically fail, US troops are dispatched to the region to take up key positions in oil producing regions and ensure protection of oil and gas pipelines.

Such anticipatory action entails the use of US ground forces, which is why the USA has started creating light infantry rapid deployment brigades armed with combat armoured vehicles transported by air. Such units are to be airlifted into any part of the world within 96 hours for the fulfilment of their combat tasks there. But the main role in this doctrine of preemptive actions is assigned to the US air force and navy in combination with air-mobile ground troops and Marines.

Nuclear weapons have a special role to play in the new doctrine. In the spring of 2002 US media carried "leaks" about the new nuclear strategy of the country, which produced a major diplomatic ballyhoo. Despite its proclaimed intention to reduce nuclear weapons, the US administration is reinforcing its nuclear forces and the giant research and production complex working in their interests. In addition, Washington has assigned nuclear weapons a new role not only in deterrence which remains in force despite the new US doctrines but also in the fight against "the axis of evil" and other "rogue" and "problem" countries. The Pentagon is improving the existing types of nuclear weapons and creating new ones, such as variable- and small-yield precision and quick-targeting nuclear weapons.

The Axis of Evil

According to the Washington administration, the ability to deliver preemptive missile and bombing strikes and wage military operations, rather than use special task forces only, should discourage other countries from assisting and cooperating with terrorists.

The situation with Iraq has gone very far and the USA is actually losing control, which is why it is openly using "prohibited" methods - if there are such methods in foreign policy. The proclamation of the possibility of preemptive strikes is one of them. Why respect international decorum, press the UN Security Council into adopting new resolutions on Iraq or wait for the first results of the work of UN inspectors if Washington will not be satisfied with them anyway? Instead, a written order will instruct the US military machine to sow death and destruction in the interests of national security. It appears that Iraq, the world's second largest oil producing country, can be saved from US wrath only by a voluntary resignation of the current regime and its replacement with a new, US-friendly regime.

But what, or rather which country will become the next US target after Iraq? After the September 11 tragedy, the Pentagon newsmakers and administration officials started speaking about the goals in the name of which the USA must root out the terrorist infrastructure. They spoke about Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Malaysia, the Philippines and many other poor and not-so-poor countries where the USA has economic, geopolitical and other interests. Later the US president coined the phrase "the axis of evil," against which he promised to fight with all available means, including military ones. But the trouble is that the international community is becoming disillusioned in the US policy, whose offensive thrust can be no longer held back by the dissenting views of the US strategic allies across the world, collective protests and debates in the UN or even such harsh warnings as the September 11 terrorist acts.

Russia

The new US military doctrine says much about Russia, although the bulk of statements are declarative. But then, it is pleasant that Russia is mentioned at all. It is symbolic that the final wording of the document was leaked to the US press when the Russian foreign and defence ministers were in the USA.

According to the doctrine, "the United States and Russia are no longer strategic adversaries" and "the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Reductions is emblematic of this new reality and reflects a critical change in Russian thinking that promises to lead to productive, long-term relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and the United States." At the same time, Washington believes that owing to inadequate financing in recent years the Russian armed forces will never be on a par with the US army. Experts believe that Washington will therefore spotlight protection from China, which is building up its conventional and nuclear armaments.

The United States plans to "refocus" relationship with Russia "on emerging and potential common interests and challenges." "We are broadening our already extensive cooperation in the global war on terrorism," says the document. At the same time, "having moved from confrontation to cooperation as the hallmark of our relationship with Russia, the dividends are evident," runs the doctrine. They include "an end to the balance of terror that divided us; an historic reduction in the nuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and missile defence that until recently were inconceivable."

Washington is "facilitating Russia's entry into the World Trade Organisation," says the National Security Strategy, "without lowering standards for accession, to promote beneficial bilateral trade and investment relations." The Russia-NATO Council was created "with the goal of deepening security cooperation" among Russia, the USA and its European allies. The document further says that the USA "will continue to bolster the independence and stability of the states of the former Soviet Union in the belief that a prosperous and stable neighbourhood will reinforce Russia's growing commitment to integration into the Euro-Atlantic community."

At the same time, the USA is "realistic about the differences that still divide" it from Russia and the time and effort it will take "to build an enduring strategic partnership." Regrettably, these differences exist in virtually all spheres covered in the new American doctrine.

The National Security Strategy is facing not only Russia with a choice. Europe is not overjoyed that the USA has actually legalised military action against any country from which threat may come to Washington's interests. The Old World has always been wary of the US cowboy tactic. It still remembers the lessons of Yugoslavia and duly noted the US striving to protect its servicemen and civilians from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Europe cannot understand Washington's inaction on environmental protection and the struggle against poverty in the Third World. The reaction of China and India as a growing power centre should not be overlooked in this situation either. In short, all countries will have to take the new US doctrine into consideration - and try not to become a US target.

BACK TO THE TOP    #225 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE