ORAC
16th Mar 2006, 12:31
BBC: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4812562.stm)US backs first-strike attack plan
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House is to confirm.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger. The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war......
The new document, overseen and approved by Mr Bush, leaves the so-called "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war largely unchanged.....likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it 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 materialise."
The US will not shy away from attacking regimes it considers hostile, or groups it believes have nuclear or chemical weapons, the White House is to confirm.
In the first restatement of national security strategy since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US singles out Iran as the greatest single current danger. The new policy backs the policy of pre-emptive war first issued in 2002, and criticised since the Iraq war......
The new document, overseen and approved by Mr Bush, leaves the so-called "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war largely unchanged.....likening the current international situation to the early years of the Cold War, the new document insists on the right of the US to protect its interests using force.
"If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack," it 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 materialise."