New U.S. Policy Supports More Military Intervention

A new national defense strategy revealed yesterday by the Pentagon calls for greater U.S. military efforts to keep foreign nations from becoming havens for terrorism or being undermined internally by such additional threats as insurgency, drugs and organized crime.

While U.S. forces have long helped bolster foreign militaries through a variety of assistance programs, the new emphasis on using force against internal threats in other nations marks a significant departure from the traditional focus on guarding against potential cross-border aggression.

In addition, the wording of the National Defense Strategy document signed this month by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld indicates the United States might intervene without the approval of the nation involved.

"Active deterrence"

Defense Department officials said the United States will use "active deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can," but could act unilaterally otherwise.

"The president has the obligation to protect the country," Douglas Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy, said yesterday. "And I don't think that there's anything in our Constitution that says that the president should not protect the country unless he gets some non-American's participation or approval of that."

According to the document:

"The United States and its allies and partners have a strong interest in protecting the sovereignty of nation states. In the secure international order that we seek, states must be able to effectively govern themselves and order their affairs as their citizens see fit."

In contrast to the 20th century, the document adds, where security threats arose from aggressive action by powerful states, "great dangers" now "may arise in and emanate from relatively weak states and ungoverned areas."

"The U.S., its allies and partners must remain vigilant to those states that lack the capacity to govern activity within their borders."

The policy raises questions about the extent to which greater U.S. military involvement would be welcomed in foreign countries or seen as an infringement of national sovereignty.

"We're a bit on the horns of a dilemma," said a defense official involved in the review who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"On the one hand, we respect the sovereignty of nation states. On the other hand, 9/11 demonstrates that threats to our direct interests can emanate from nonstate actors within nation-states. We're trying to square this by working with nation-states that are cooperative so that they can govern themselves and nonstate actors cannot pose threats."

Defense officials made clear yesterday that the revised strategy reflects the Bush administration's priority since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on taking preventive action globally to block potential attacks or limit dangerous situations from mushrooming into worse crises that would require even greater U.S. military involvement.

"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," Feith said.

Much of the new strategy strikes themes previously stressed by the administration, including the unconventional and unpredictable nature of present-day threats, the need for an "active defense" and the "transformation" of the armed forces into more agile, deployable units.

Pentagon officials in the past also have underscored the need for international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and expressed concern about the potential for "failed" states or "ungoverned" territories becoming havens for terrorist activity. But the new strategy makes this a central focus, officials said.

Global groups avoided

The policy appears to move the nation further from reliance on international coalitions such as NATO and more toward what Rumsfeld has called "coalitions of the willing" under clear U.S. leadership, analysts said.

In some cases, respected global organizations seem to be viewed with suspicion. In describing the vulnerabilities of the United States, the document uses strong language to list international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice, created under a treaty the United States has declined to sign, alongside terrorists.

The concern, Feith explained, is that some nations would try to "criminalize" American foreign policy by challenging it in international courts.

Feith, asked to identify specific regions warranting priority attention, appeared hard-pressed to come up with a list.

"I don't think that the world gives us the luxury of picking areas," he said. "We have interests all over the world."

Just how the Pentagon's plan will translate into new international missions — and what changes it will require in U.S. forces and weapons — will be a major subject of a broad defense review getting under way at the Pentagon, officials said. As a sign of the importance being given to international cooperation, Pentagon officials said, a number of foreign countries are being invited to participate in the defense review — a first in what historically has been a closed Pentagon process.

The Washington Post and Los Angles Times
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company