The 2002 National Security Strategy: the Foundation Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Graduate Program in International Studies Dissertations Summer 2013 The 2002 aN tional Security Strategy: The Foundation of a Doctrine of Preemption, Prevention, or Anticipatory Action Troy Lorenzo Ewing Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds Part of the American Politics Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, International Law Commons, Terrorism Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Ewing, Troy L.. "The 2002 aN tional Security Strategy: The oundF ation of a Doctrine of Preemption, Prevention, or Anticipatory Action" (2013). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, International Studies, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/ 8f8q-9g35 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/gpis_etds/46 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Program in International Studies at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Program in International Studies Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: THE FOUNDATION OF A DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION, PREVENTION, OR ANTICIPATORY ACTION by Troy Lorenzo Ewing B.A. May 1992, Rutgers University M.B.A. May 2001, Webster University M.S.S.I. May 2007, National Intelligence University A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY INTERNATIONAL STUDIES OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2013 ABSTRACT THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: THE FOUNDATION OF A DOCTRINE OF PREEMPTION, PREVENTION, OR ANTICIPATORY ACTION Troy Lorenzo Ewing Old Dominion University, 2013 Director: Dr. Simon Serfaty The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, initiated a strategic shift in American national security policy. For the United States, terrorism was no longer a distant phenomenon visited upon faraway regions; it had come to America with stark brutality.1 Consequently, the administration of President George W. Bush sought to advance a security strategy to counter the proliferating threat of terrorism. The ensuing 2002 National Security Strategy articulated the willingness of the United States to oppose terrorists, and rogue nation states by merging the strategies of “preemptive” and “preventive” warfare into an unprecedented strategy of “anticipatory action,” known as the Doctrine of Preemption (DoP). During the Global War on Terrorism, the DoP was used to protect the United States against terrorism; however, it initiated “spillover effects” that influenced other political domains in the 1 Arthur F. Lykke, Military Strategy: Theory and Application (Carlisle, Pa.: U.S. Army War College, 1993), 3-8. international community.2 Many scholars argued the DoP leaned toward unilateralism, while others asserted the strategy was in line with the United States’ historical tradition of using military force to influence global events favorable to its strategic objectives.3 Accordingly, this dissertation examines the post-9/11 global security environment from 2001 through 2008 to analyze the strategic characteristics of the DoP, and the geo-political conditions that stimulated its maturation as a strategy of anticipatory action. 2 The Global War on Terrorism was officially ended by the Obama administration in March 2009 and replaced with “Overseas Contingency Operation.” See Scott Wilson and A1 Kamen, “Global War on Terror' Is Given New Name,” Washington Post, accessed May 10, 2012, www.washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009. 3 Robert Kagan, Of Paradise and Power: American and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Random House, 2003), 61. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I give distinct honor and praise to God Almighty, and my savior Jesus Christ. I thank my family for their continued devotion and patience. In addition, I thank my committee members, Dr. Simon Serfaty, Dr. Regina Karp, and Dr. Benjamin Neimark for their support. I give exceptional thanks to Dr. Serfaty whose indispensable mentorship and encouragement made my studies at Old Dominion University remarkably worthwhile. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES..............................................................................................................x ABBREVIATIONS...........................................................................................................xi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY...........................................................................1 RESEARCH QUESTION................................................................................17 RESEARCH PROBLEM..................................................................................21 METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN.........................................27 DATA COLLECTION.....................................................................................28 DATA ANALYSIS............................................................................................29 INSTRUMENTATION....................................................................................29 CASE STUDIES.................................................................................................31 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY..............................................................33 DISSERTATION ORGANIZATION..........................................................39 II. LITERATURE REVIEW................................................ 44 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................,...44 THEORETICAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS................................................. 46 THEORETICAL LITERATURE: PRIORITIES OF NATIONAL BEHAVIOR ...................................................................47 EXPERIENTIAL LITERATURE: AMERICA AND THE WORLD....................................................................................................60 SUMMARY........................................................................................................71 III. FUNCTIONS OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: THE COLD WAR TO THE GW OT......................................................................72 BACKGROUND............................ 72 COLD WAR NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY..............................77 POST-9/11: A NEW GRAND STRATEGY .............................................87 vii THE EFFECTS OF 9/11 ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY...........................................................................................108 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................Ill IV. MILITARY ANTICIPATORY ACTION: CONDITIONS FOR PREEMPTION OR PREVENTION...........................................................115 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................115 THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY: THE DISCUSSION........................................................................................118 CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ANTICIPATORY ACTION..................................................................................................133 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................140 V. DIPLOMACY: PERCEPTIONS AND EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND LEGITIMACY...............................................143 BACKGROUND.......................................................... 143 CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS...............................................144 WHAT IS A JUST W AR?............................................................................160 AN INQUIRY OF LEGITIMACY.............................................................168 THE PUBLIC VIEW OF LEGITIMACY................................................173 SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 179 VI. A QUESTION OF INTELLIGENCE............................................................182 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................182 ENABLING ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE......................................184 THE UTILIZATION OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.................. 187 POLITICIZATION OF INTELLIGENCE...............................................191 SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 199 VII. GAME THEORY AND NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY..................................................................................................................202 INTRODUCTION......................................... 202 MODELS OF STRATEGIC ANALYSIS................................................. 203 SUMMARY......................................................................................................221 VIII. FINDINGS........................................ 224 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................224 FUNCTIONS OF U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY: THE COLD WAR TO THE GW OT.............................................224