U.S. "first strike" doctrine

The revelation that Washington is developing a new "first strike" strategic doctrine to pre-empt attacks by terrorist groups or rogue states has significant implications for America's military allies in the "war against terrorism," including Australia.

The new, aggressive doctrine suggests the Bush Administration is determined to escalate its anti-terrorism campaign, probably with a decisive strike to topple the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, within a year. While America's allies were eager to join the assault on Afghanistan, the same cannot be said for a wider war, particularly one involving the strategic and diplomatic tinderbox of the Middle East.

What the new U.S. doctrine means is the end of more than half a century of reliance on "deterrence and containment," built on the assumption that American military superiority would prevent any attack on the U.S. because of the certain and overwhelming retaliatory strike. For the first time, the concept of "pre- emption" and "defensive intervention" are to be listed as formal strategic options. When coupled with similarly momentous changes to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, America is now flexing unprecedented military might.

"Pre-emption," however, carries the very real risk of rapidly escalating a crisis, by increasing pressure on both sides to act. In the case of Iraq, a cornered Saddam could lash out with "pre- emptive" strikes of his own using biological or chemical weapons, either against U.S. troops, or against the nearby U.S. ally, Israel. There are also reasonable fears that "pre-emptive" military strikes on chemical, biological or nuclear weapons stockpiles could contaminate wide geographical areas and risk the lives of many civilians.

-- The Sydney Morning Herald