US redefines 'preemption' strategy

The United States tried to redefine its controversial policy of
preemption, saying that the strike-first strategy made famous by the
Iraq war does not necessarily imply military action.
“I think there's a misconception that preemption means war. It doesn't.
Preemption means stopping somebody before they can do you harm. There
are diplomatic ways to do that,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow.  
Snow had been asked about recent media reports suggesting that US
President George W. Bush had given up on “cowboy diplomacy” and
unilateral action in favor of diplomatic outreach, especially in
dealings with Iran and North Korea.
“Preemption also can be a diplomatic strategy. What you try to do, for
instance, in the case of North Korea, is to preempt activity,” said
Snow. “Pre-emption is not merely a military doctrine.”
But while the US National Security Strategy, made public by the White
House in March, puts a premium on diplomacy as a first remedy, it
leaves little doubt that preemption refers to military means.
“If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self defense,
we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if
uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack,”
the document says.
“When the consequences of an attack with WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand
idly by as grave dangers materialize. This is the principle and logic
of preemption,” according to the strategy.
“The place of preemption in our national security strategy remains the
same,” the document said.
href="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/10/060710181915.v9ygraaw.html">Origianl
Source

No related posts.