National SecurityIntroduction
Background During the 1980's and 1990's, the world witnessed the convergence of two threats that are now the predominant national security concern of the United States. The first threat is the rise of non-state actors that promote the use of terrorism. The State Department defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."i The second threat is the use of weapons of mass destruction. A weapon of mass destruction is defined as "any weapon that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (a) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (b) a disease organism; or (c) radiation or radioactivity."ii A weapon of mass destruction is usually a nuclear, chemical or biological device and their means of delivery. Traditionally, these weapons were so technologically advanced, that it took the resources of a well-developed nation to use them for military purposes. That, of course, has all changed with terrorism, whose goal is to create terror against civilians. Now, simply filling a bag with a chemical nerve agent such as sarin, and placing it in a crowded subway will meet the terrorist's goals. Making sarin and crudely deploying it is relatively easy for a college-educated chemist. We call these new threats "asymmetric" in that it only takes a small amount of resources on the part of a terrorist to cause catastrophic consequences to its target. Mailing the envelope containing anthrax to the Senate Hart Office Building cost perhaps several thousand dollars to accomplish. The cost to clean up the Hart Office Building was about 40 million dollars. The cost does not take into account the cleaning up of the postal facilities, which the letters passed through, and the deaths and disruption of the Washington metropolitan region for many weeks. Our simulation will deal with a nation that not only has a known chemical and biological weapons program, but has also developed a nuclear capability. The question the United States now faces is how to respond to nations that have developed or have weapons of mass destruction and which might aid terrorist groups in using them, and how will the United States' actions affect regional economic and political stability. The military option that this class will discuss is the policy associated with preemption. Preemption derives itself from the word "preempt" which means to "appropriate, seize or act for oneself before others."iii Preemption is associated with preventing an act from occurring. More importantly, preemption denotes a unilateral action taken alone to the exclusion of others. A historical example of preemption would be the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor. At that time, France was in the process of building a nuclear reactor for Iraq. Israel, long condemning the sale to Iraq and fearing it would ultimately produce plutonium for a nuclear weapon, sent warplanes 700 miles to destroy the reactor before it was completed. Such narrowly targeted actions are based upon the international law principal of self-defense. Preemptive actions before any hostility has occurred are called "anticipatory" self-defense. While the Israeli case was the most prominent in recent history, nations do employ preemptive actions to disrupt terrorist cells. Such actions have traditionally been characterized by affecting a well-defined target such as a single nuclear reactor or a terrorist cell. Hypothetical In our hypothetical, the United States is developing a new policy of preemption against nations and non-state actors that they believe have weapons of mass destruction and could use it against the U.S. Unlike previous policies of preemption against well-defined targets, such as a single reactor in Iraq, this new policy is greatly expanded against entire nations and it emphasizes that the U.S. will conduct these actions unilaterally. The premise is based upon the assymetric nature of the threat we are facing in the 21st century and the catastrophic consequences that a weapon of mass destruction can cause in the U.S. The preemption policy is considered a major departure from our traditional defense strategy, which has been based upon building a coalition of nations for a collective self defense. Such a collective strategy is called multi-lateral defense. Common examples of a multi-lateral defense are the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, which during the Cold War held that an attack on any one member was an attack on all members. The 1991 Gulf War was built upon a large coalition of nations against Iraq. The 1996 incursion into Bosnia was a multi-lateral coalition. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, the administration demonstrated this doctrine of preemptive war with mixed results. How will the United States confront the current and even more serious threat of North Alderian weapons of mass destruction and how will the United States deal with other nations in the region in the wake of the controversy surrounding Operation Iraqi Freedom? In this hypothetical, within the past month North Alder has expelled United Nations nuclear weapons instructors and declared themselves a nuclear power. U.S. intelligence has indicated increased activity at North Alder's primary nuclear weapons research and production facility at Yong Blong. At the same time, the leader of North Alder launched into tirade against the United States and their South Alderian allies. The leader of North Alder called for the immediate withdraw of U.S. forces from their "occupation" of South Alder and that the "puppet government" of South Alder be immediately replaced or they will both be "burned from Alderian soil." For the past 50 years, the policy option that the United States has used against North Alder has been multi-lateral economic sanctions and containment of any ambitions that North Alder might have to invade South Alder. Over 60,000 U.S. troops have guaranteed South Alder's security. History: The Alderian War The Alderian War represented the first armed conflict of the Cold War. North Alder, with the support of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, invaded South Alder in an attempt to unity the Alderian peninsula. The United States immediately responded by sending thousands to troops to the aid of South Alder. After years of war, the United States and the United Nations' forces pushed the North Alderians to the Chino border. Chino, fearing an invasion by the United States, launched into surprise attack on U.S. and U.N. forces and pushed them back to the original North/South Alder border. Currently, the border between North and South Alder is a heavily fortified demilitarized zone where small skirmishes have broken out between South Alderian and North Alderian forces. A state of war still exists between the two nations. In our scenario, the United States feels compelled to act in accordance with its doctrine of military preemption, but with troop commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, the U.S. finds itself spread thin. Clearly, a full scale unilateral military solution is not a policy option for the United States. Instead, the United States must find another solution, one that includes regional powers in order to work together to solve the "North Alderian" issue. "Patterns of Global Terrorism," U.S. Department of State, p. xvi, (May 2002). "Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996," Pub.L. 104-201, Title XIV, (Sept. 23, 1996), (see also 50 U.S.C. 2302(1)). The American Heritage Dictionary (1985)
|
| |