Introduction
The U.S. Constitution demands that the U.S. President prepare a detailed report on the country's national security strategy (NSS) for presentation to Congress. This is in keeping with the s. 603 of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act (CSIS, 2017). The NSS report serves the main goal of delineating the global goals, objectives, and interests that the United States considers crucial to its national security. The 2002 NSS was released in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, and this could explain to a great extent the tone and content of the document. The Bush administration viewed the attacks of September 11th as the greatest test of global international relations since the aftermath of World War Two when the Soviet Union became a superpower. However, the document has inspired a lot of debate and controversy in the post-Cold War era, and it therefore represents a tectonic shift in the development of sovereignty.
A brief description of the 2002 US National Security Strategy
The key tenets of the 2002 NSS document are preemption, unilateralism, combating terrorism, and missile defence. Preemption refers to the use of force to defend oneself in anticipation of an imminent attack. This is recognised as an appropriate and legitimate strategy under international law. Under the 2002 NSS, however, the Bush Administration endeavoured to advance the implied meaning to include preventive war too. Basically, the 2002 NSS calls upon the United States to mobilise its military prowess to wage war and defeat imminent threats from tyrants and terrorists. For this reason, the U.S may deem it necessary to apply force in the absence of evidence of an impending attack. This is with a view to protecting the U.S from possible growth of a serious threat over time (Ivo, Lindsay & Steinberg, 2002).
Summary of the Key Tenets of NSS Document
Unilateralism refers to a philosophy that promotes a one-sided action without seeking reciprocity or outside support. In the 2002 NSS document, the Bush administration outlines its readiness to act unilaterally where necessary, without seeking the endorsement of the international community. This would happen if the United States faced an imminent threat in the form of terrorism, WMD (weapons of mass destruction), or a nuclear threat. Regarding the war on terrorism, the NSS document outlines the President’s commitment to defending peace by waging war on tyrants and terrorists who are out to deny ordinary citizens the gift of peace (The White House, 2002). Towards this end, the Strategy underscores the importance of preventing acts of tyranny or terrorism. Taking preemptive action, defending against such imminent threats, and managing the consequences of such threats.
Finally, the document demands improved defence in such areas as missile defence. Accordingly, the document states the need to increase the current military budget considerably (Haine & Lindström, 2002).
Analysis
The 2002 NSS signified a tectonic shift in American foreign policy. During the Cold War, America had adopted strategies of containment and deterrence, and the choice of these conventional strategies hinged on the fact that the U.S was at war with a state. However, following the devastating events of 9/11, the Bush administration felt compelled to change strategies as the 'war on terror' could not be fought with the policies of containment and deterrence (Korb & Wadhams, 2006). This is largely the case because global terrorism is an ideology, as opposed t,o say, a state. For this reason, the Bush administration resorted to the adoption of a pre-emptive agenda in an attempt to safeguard its national security interests (Rehman, 2012). There is no denying that the key tenets of the 2002 NSS are largely based on the 9/11 terrorist attacks on U.S soil. Faced with the imminent threat of terrorism, America undoubtedly felt insecure, and this obviously informed the decision to adopt a pre-emptive strategy to counter the imminent threat. While such a move could be interpreted as an attempt by the U.S to affirm its own sovereignty, it has also come under criticism by such scholars as Wheeler (2003), who view the approach as an infringement on the very idea of sovereignty. Wheeler (2003) describes a pre-emptive strike as "one where a state, or group of states, uses force in response to an imminent threat" (p. 189). The NSS has attempted to change the idea of imminent threat in a bid to justify the use of a pre-emptive strategy. This is evidenced by a statement issued by the White House in which the President states that there is a need to embrace the idea of "imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries" (2002, p. 19).
Nonetheless, Knight (2002) contends that because the idea of imminent threats has an actual meaning and several definitions, we cannot go about making changes to it. Hendrikson (2002) is of the view that the NSS went about stretching the idea of pre-emptive force to include pre-emptive war, citing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because the country harboured WMD. The NSS thus confuses between preventive war and preemptive threat concepts, and this is in itself an indication of an ongoing failure to assess "lessons learnt" from military endeavours to prevent indeterminate threats and get rid of regimes with no elaborate plans for installing a new regime. According to Lennon and Kozlowski (2008), the devastating events of 9/11, which in turn informed the 2002 NS,S resulted in a radical shift in the U.S. national security. This is because the attacks altered the country's priorities regarding threat perception and agenda on national security. Consequently, the threat of terrorism reigned supreme over the need to balance emerging powers (Lennon & Kozlowski, 2008). Moreover, by identifying a preemptive strategy as the basis for the U.S. stance on international relations, the NSS is oblivious to the important role played by deterrence and containment. Even as the 9/11 terrorist attack might have been a very devastating and traumatic event by all accounts, it, nonetheless, did not alter international relations fully. It took more than $ 2 billion per year to contain Iraq (Lennon & Kozlowski, 2008). By accounts, the US has in its possession enough operational nuclear weapons to deter Iran, which, alongside North Korea, has emerged as a new threat to U.S national security.
Grygiel (2010) opines that while respect for sovereignty is in itself regarded as a reliable tool in international relations, he also notes that respecting sovereignty comes at a cost. For example, respect for total sovereignty limits national security, seeing as it deprives a nation of the ability to pose a threat to other nations, which is in itself regarded as a main tool of foreign policy. The NSS may also be viewed as exaggerating claims that the threat posed by terrorists and violent extremists rivals the one witnessed at the start of the Cold War. However, such a comparison is highly stretched. Attacks instigated by the U.S on Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan and other offshoots of the totalitarian ideology have led to a transformation of terrorism into a rather loose ideology whose new focus is on exploiting failed states like Sudan and Somalia to obtain recruits who will in turn propagate extremist ideologies (Perry, 2012). At the height of the Cold War, the U.S. was regarded as a global superpower, er bit ut is now faced by various isolated extremists whose objective is to take advantage of local grievances. Therefore, comparing the current terror threat to the U.S with the situations at the height of the Cold War is not only misleading, but also inaccurate.
Moreover, the NSS document misconstrued the motive behind the decision by extremists to engage in violence. While President Bush argues that engaging in acts of terrorism is not merely due to hostility over Uthe U.S.occupation of Iraq, her response to Al Qaeda or position on the Palestinian-Israel issue, Korb and Wadhams (2006), on the other han,d argue that enslavement is at the core of the terrorists' ideology, and that terrorists view people as objects befitting of exploitation and oppression. What this means for the NSS is that terrorists loathe our freedom. However, it could be that terrorists loathe our policies and our power and influence is a source of threat to them. The U.S was too preoccupied with the war on terror and the Iraq war to an extent that it did not show a genuine interest in partaking in direct negotiations with both Iran and North Korea. Consequently, the two countries have continued to build stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Conclusion
The 2002 NSS has certain implications for international relations. For instance, the U.S policy of preemption remains ambiguous and lacks defined criteria for preemption. prevention. For instance, both North Korea and Iraq have been categorised on a similar axis on account of their intention to possess or actual possession of WMD. The U.S. stance on terrorism also appears overstretched by comparing it to the conflict with the USSR at the height of the Cold War. On the issue of sovereignty, the U.S has no right to impede or marginalize the sovereignty of other states in a bid to protect its own.
References
CSIS 2017. Perspectives on the 2018 E.S. National Security Strategy.
Grygiel, J. 2010. The Costs of Respecting Sovereignty.
Hendrickson. C. D (2002), Toward Universal Empire: The Dangerous Quest for Absolute Security, World Policy Journal, 19(3), 1-10.
Knight, C. 2002. Essential Elements Missing in the National Security Strategy of 2002.
Korb, L., & Wadhams, C. 2006. A Critique of the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy.
Ivo H. Daalder, James M. Lindsay, and James B Steinberg, “The Bush National Security Strategy: An Evaluation Policy Brief
Haine, J.Y., & Lindström, gG. 2002. An analysis of The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
Lennon, A.T.J., & Kozlowski, A. 2008. Global Powers in the 21st Century: Strategies and Relations. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Perry, M. 2012. Sources of the Western Tradition Volume II: From the Renaissance to the Present. Stamford, Mass.: Cengage Learning.
Rehman, F. 2012. Analyzing America's National Security Strategy.
The White House 2002. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
Wheeler. J. N. 2003. The Bush Doctrine: The Dangers of American Exceptionalism in a Revolutionary Age. Asian Perspective, 27(4), pp.183-216.
