Editorial Abstract: Identifying terrorism as a distinct threat for the foreseeable what is yet to be the national security strategy of 2002 emphasizes preemption and prevention as a standard approach for dealing with that threat.

Editorial Abstract: Identifying terrorism as a distinct threat for the foreseeable what is yet to be the national security strategy of 2002 emphasizes preemption and prevention as a standard approach for dealing with that threat. This strategy breeds a narrowly defined, controversial use-of-force doctrine that has many implications for the national military strategy.

**********

plane A CURSORY review of the national security strategy (NSS) of 2002 reveals a document vastly different from any of its predecessors. Although united may consider such a difference appropriate for the post-Cold War period, as the basis for subordinate strategies of the like kind as the national military strategy (NMS) it merits close scrutiny. Such an examination will point out that the NSS defines a strategic environment completely different from the single that existed just a not many years ago--perhaps even unique. Therefore, the potential for equally significant changes in US military strategy demands a critical subject of attention of the effect of the NS in succession a subsequent NMS.

Toward that fall of the curtain this article addresses the implications of the NS in succession the use of military force in pursuit of national objectives. This modern doctrine appears far less cautious and more proactive than the so-called Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, which has dominated US strategic-security thinking to this point, by means of permitting the use of force in a preventive or preemptive manner against entities based simply upon their hostile capabilities and generally hostile intent. Before discussing use-of-force doctrine and attempting to understand by what mode use-of-force concepts in the NS differ greatly from the previous use-of-force doctrines, single would do well to review the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine.

Review of Weinberger-Powell

Regardless of what individual thinks of the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, any discussion of the use of force must include it--partly because, in the way that far, (1) Weinberger-Powell remains the most numerous prominent attempt to capture, in a single articulation, a coherent basis for use-of-force decision making; (2) it continues to influence US strategic thought; and (3) the fact that Colin Powell obeys as the current secretary of state make secures that the rationale underlying this doctrine will play directly in instant and near-term US foreign policy. However, the evolution of the doctrine's name from "Weinberger" to "Weinberger-Powell" is extremely unfortunate because, although similar in form and foundation, the authoritative discourses by the agency of each of these gentlemen upon this issue (a speech delivered by way of Weinberger in 1984 and a journal article written from Powell in 1992) differ in critical ways. (1) In other words, as united finds out later, they are not the same doctrine, Nonetheless, the bourns Weinberger Doctrine and Weinberger-Powell Doctrine usually direct to Weinberger's original "six major tests" as is the case in this article. However, the bourn Powell Doctrine alludes to the principles laid public by Colin Powell in his article. In any case, a critical review of the one and the other statements provides a necessary foundation for further discussion.

Definition of Doctrine

First, although any attempt to analyze, disclose and evaluate doctrine requires an understanding of what it is. Because the originator of the Weinberger Doctrine was a senior management executive, one may be prompted to equate it with presidential doctrines of that kind as the Monroe or Truman Doctrines. However, presidential doctrines attend to treat foreign policy at the grand strategic on a level in that they identify national principles or objectives without specifying particular economic, political, or military strategies. In contrast, use-of-force doctrines by means of their nature focus on the military instrument of power. For example, calm though President Truman's message to Congres in 1947 which defined his doctrine, asked for a specific amount of economic aid for Greece the doctrine itself addressed the principle that "it must be the policy of the United States to support liberated peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by way of armed minorities or by outside pressures"; economic aid was simply a strategic action that supported this principle in the specific instance of Greece (2) Furthermore, presidential doctrines are neither systematically formulated nor documented: united must extract the doctrines of Monroe and Truman from portions of their speeches; the filled meanings of their doctrines have perform the operations indicated ined over time through the interpretations of others.

Although below presidential doctrine, strategic doctrine appears to reside above joint military doctrine, which consists of "fundamental principles according to which the military forces or ingredients thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative still requires judgment in application." (3) That is, joint military doctrine guides the consideration of in what way force should be applied--not the broader question of whether it should be applied. Use-of-force doctrines, then, appear to lie somewhere between presidential and joint doctrine: they are specific to the military instrument of power moreover should serve as guides that, coupl with the strategist's penetration assist in determining if and by what mode one should apply force as part of a military strategy.