Preventive Defense

William J. Perry and Ashton B. Carter, two of the world's foremost defense authorities, draw on their experience as leaders of the U.S. Defense Department to propose a new American security strategy for the twenty-first century. After a century in which aggression had to be defeated in two world wars and then deterred through a prolonged cold war, the authors argue for a strategy centered on prevention. Now that the cold war is over, it is necessary to rethink the risks to U.S. security. The A list--threats to U.S. survival--is empty today. The B list--the two major regional contingencies in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula that dominate Pentagon planning and budgeting--pose imminent threats to U.S. interests but not to survival. And the C list--such headline-grabbing places as Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti--includes important contingencies that indirectly affect U.S. security but do not directly threaten U.S. interests. Thus the United States is enjoying a period of unprecedented peace and influence; but foreign policy and defense leaders cannot afford to be complacent. The authors' preventive defense strategy concentrates on the dangers that, if mismanaged, have the potential to grow into true A-list threats to U.S. survival in the next century. These include Weimar Russia: failure to establish a self-respecting place for the new Russia in the post-cold war world, allowing it to descend into chaos, isolation, and aggression as Germany did after World War I; Loose Nukes: failure to reduce and secure the deadly legacy of the cold war--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union; A Rising China Turned Hostile: failure to shape China's rise to Asian superpower status so that it emerges as a partner rather than an adversary; Proliferation: spread of weapons of mass destruction; and Catastrophic Terrorism: increase in the scope and intensity of transnational terrorism.They also argue for

Does the United States have the right to defend itself by striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately responding to the pressing security threats of our times. In Striking First, Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop clearer standards for dealing with lethal but not immediate threats. After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in enforcing international law and strengthening international guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, Striking First includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh, yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.

The Stanford Task Force Report on Preventive Force, by Abraham D. Sofaer, offers a practical guide to identifying and considering the issues relevant to preventive uses of force. The report seeks to ensure that such uses of force, if undertaken, will advance national and international security and the purposes of the United Nations Charter. The report examines the legitimacy, dangers, and limitations of preventive force and concludes by encouraging states and decision makers to undertake a systematic appraisal of the merits of any threat or use of preventive force based, not only on legal standards, which have proved an ineffective guide, but also on standards related to legitimacy, such as the consistency of proposed actions with the U.N. Charter and established norms of conduct.

The book examines the complex and contested moral and legal issues of preventive warfare.

How the US can rectify organizational and managerial problems to maximize its military effectiveness.

In March 1996 Secretary Perry outlined a profound change to defense policy called 'Prevent, Deter, Defeat'. Preventive Defense seeks to limit the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, encourage newly independent nations to emphasize civilian control of their military, and establish defense- to-defense relationships with other nations. This profound change in defense policy recognizes that the military aspect of national power is an integral part of fostering international friendships in non-combat situations as well. Preventive defense strategy argues that its policies are capable of preventing drastically more expensive conflicts in the future. Preventive defense seeks to promote peace and stability through friendly interaction. Preventive defense shapes the future by building closer ties between the U.S. military and foreign militaries - opening channels of communication that can reduce misunderstanding and misperception. U.S. forces must be capable of action across the spectrum of peace and conflict. In order to field this kind of force, planners must abandon the methodology of basing force structure decisions on the perceived threat. The American military needs the best weapons and equipment the nation can afford, but the seemingly insatiable appetite for modernization should not consume force structure required to execute the manpower intensive activities that prevent conflict.

RAND Project AIR FORCE studied the post-9/11 shift in U.S. defense policy emphasis toward preemptive and preventive attack, asking under what conditions preemptive or preventive attack is worth considering as a response to perceived threats. It considered the role such first-strike strategies are likely to play in future U.S. national security policy. Finally, it identified implications these conclusions have for military planners and policymakers as they prepare to deal with national security threats in the next decade.