US Defence Policy Guidelines

Ray · 03-18-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

The 1992 Defense Policy Guidance, crafted by then-Defense Department staffers I. Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz at the behest of Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, is widely regarded as an early formulation of the neoconservatives' post-cold war agenda. When a draft version of the policy guidance, which typically outlines the U.S. defense posture and goals, was leaked to the New York Times, the ensuing public outcry prompted the White House to order a new guidance. Of the many points causing controversy were the document's call for unilateral military action in parts of the world considered important to U.S. interests, preemptive action against potential threats, and the prevention of the emergence of regional rivals.

The guidance argued: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia. There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
When the Bush administration released the unclassified version of its National Security Strategy, observers remarked on the many similarities between the draft guidance and the new strategy, particularly their mutual call for a preemptive defense posture. The guidance also bears a striking resemblance to the founding statement of principles of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), released on June 3, 1997. Not too surprisingly, Wolfowitz and Libby--who both serve in the Bush II Pentagon--were signatories to the statement, along with Cheney and several other current Bush officials, including Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, Peter Rodman, and Elliott Abrams.

Like the guidance, the PNAC statement called for U.S. global leadership and preemptive action, arguing, "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/wolf.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nss-020920.pdf
http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I find that the DPG is a very interesting and far thinking and far reaching document.

The current activities indicate that it is being implemented but I wonder how far is this policy being implemented in the current context.

Though this is a very lucid policy, yet it has some lacunae.

It remains a very intellectual exercise for one to analyse the document, corelate the current activities and then predict the future of US Defence Policy and what should be the midcourse corrections, if any, so as to ensure that the US remains the sole superpower without hinderance and without upsetting the apple cart.

I wonder if this momentum can be maintained as initiated in Iraq which is now somewhat losing the initial steam. The issue is also getting complicated with new alignments emerging and China chugging ahead without problems to be a challenger in the not to distant future.

What must the US do, to ward off these challenges I wonder.

Ray · 03-18-2006, 13:37 PM

Come on chaps, not that difficult is it?

Of course no one is expecting a policy decision from anyone!

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-18-2006, 14:21 PM

Sir,

No time right now. Birthday party for #1 Daughter. She's 5 today and getting a brand new pony and the dogs are jealous the pony is getting all the attention.

**Officer of Engineers** · 03-19-2006, 01:38 AM

Finally, Sir, time to myself.

Sir,

You have to look at the original document in context, especially with the time period involved. The US just came off leading the world's mightiest alliance in a successful war against Iraq. The Bear went down but alot of wolves sprung up and everywhere hotspots threaten to spin out of control.

There were extreme frustrations all around, letting the wolves have their way - from Yugoslavia to Somalia to Rwanda. The temptation obviously was there to hit the wolves before they could infest the area.

Since 11 Sept, the doctrine has been forced upon the US, especially with Saddam. The Air War has been going on for 10 years and Saddam has just gotten hints how to think outside the box. The US has stared down North Korea and in process of doing the same with Iran.

The China scenario is a bit more complicated. In that, no one knows what they want. Several years ago, Bush was ready to bomb China to destroy his own EP-3. Last year, he was dining in Beijing.

Ray · 03-19-2006, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Finally, Sir, time to myself.

Sir,

You have to look at the original document in context, especially with the time period involved. The US just came off leading the world's mightiest alliance in a successful war against Iraq. The Bear went down but alot of wolves sprung up and everywhere hotspots threaten to spin out of control.

There were extreme frustrations all around, letting the wolves have their way - from Yugoslavia to Somalia to Rwanda. The temptation obviously was there to hit the wolves before they could infest the area.

Since 11 Sept, the doctrine has been forced upon the US, especially with Saddam. The Air War has been going on for 10 years and Saddam has just gotten hints how to think outside the box. The US has stared down North Korea and in process of doing the same with Iran.

The China scenario is a bit more complicated. In that, no one knows what they want. Several years ago, Bush was ready to bomb China to destroy his own EP-3. Last year, he was dining in Beijing.

Colonel,

I don't think the DPG will be available in the open forum. If it were then obviously there would be hassles.

What is available are the commentaries of those who have seen the document and one has to go by that.

The intrinsic issues in the DPG is excellent from the US point of view and of that there is no doubt, but what the DPG apparently misses out is assessing the reaction to its policy. It is merely looking at the best case scenario and because it has not cranked in the worst case scenarios, situations like what's up in Iraq has happened.

I believe the DPG takes the Energy Crisis as a major input in its postulations. To that end, Iraq and even Iran come into view. Providentially for the US, both regimes are/ were obtuse in their equations with their own people and with the world and hence the implementation of the DPG became' becomes easier.

However, the issue of the reaction has to be taken into consideration and that is why there is definitely a soft pedalling as far as Iran is concerned or else there would have been another invasion. The lack of troops for such an invasion is another factor that has come into play.

The DPG expected that the US would be able to tackle two operations of the type in Iraq simultaneously. But the events have caused a drawdown of the capability visualised and now it is believed that only one operation would be addressed at a time. While one cannot say for sure, but could that be the reason why Afghanistan, which is equally important in the GWoT, has received lesser attention and has been more or less left to the Canadians and the Europeans, with heavy US logistic and Special Forces support?

Could you amplify and correct the above so that the actual facts are known and not left in the realm of surmises and speculations?

03-18-2006, 14:21 PM	#3 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,688 Country:	Sir, No time right now. Birthday party for #1 Daughter. She's 5 today and getting a brand new pony and the dogs are jealous the pony is getting all the attention. __________________ Chimo

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Indias PVT sector jumps in defence	joey2	South Asian Defense Topics	15	06-11-2008 00:00 AM
Singapore to acquire Leopard 2A4s	Ironduke	Land Forces	17	04-03-2008 06:33 AM
Bliar in the Dock?	Ray	Political Discussions	26	01-16-2007 18:01 PM
RBI pegs GDP growth at 7.5-8%	santosh tiwari	Political Discussions	0	07-27-2006 22:54 PM
Defending the Loin City...	troung	Land Forces	40	06-10-2006 00:19 AM

03-18-2006, 13:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 25,849 Country:	Come on chaps, not that difficult is it? Of course no one is expecting a policy decision from anyone!

03-19-2006, 01:38 AM	#4 (permalink)
Officer of Engineers Moderator Scotch taster Join Date: 08-06-03 Posts: 15,688 Country:	Finally, Sir, time to myself. Sir, You have to look at the original document in context, especially with the time period involved. The US just came off leading the world's mightiest alliance in a successful war against Iraq. The Bear went down but alot of wolves sprung up and everywhere hotspots threaten to spin out of control. There were extreme frustrations all around, letting the wolves have their way - from Yugoslavia to Somalia to Rwanda. The temptation obviously was there to hit the wolves before they could infest the area. Since 11 Sept, the doctrine has been forced upon the US, especially with Saddam. The Air War has been going on for 10 years and Saddam has just gotten hints how to think outside the box. The US has stared down North Korea and in process of doing the same with Iran. The China scenario is a bit more complicated. In that, no one knows what they want. Several years ago, Bush was ready to bomb China to destroy his own EP-3. Last year, he was dining in Beijing.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)