Thread: US Defence Policy Guidelines

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the unclassified version of its National Security Strategy, observers remarked on the many similarities between the draft guidance and the new strategy, particularly their mutual call for a preemptive defense posture.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.