International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Section II Chapter competing U.S. global power
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://translate.google.com/transla ... 0.119%2F38508%2F6%2F201106.pdf
Published: Oct 3, 2011
Author: ?
Post Date: 2011-10-03 22:46:19 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 228
Comments: 4
"We Americans are the concerns and views of other countries turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, but did not admit that we Some behavior is tantamount to satirize their own values, which would make the United States and its allies to expand the growing gap between the risk Large. Today we criticize the United States, attributed to envy our success and strength, and falling into the habit of anti-American Mentality, of course, some truth, but not always the case. We may also see their own how to deal with the major issues, How others see our behavior and is consistent with your values. " 39 In 1999, the "Economist" (The Economist) magazine called "America's world" mentioned in the article: "The United States is like a giant cross on the planet sitting, it dominates the business, trade and transportation and other fields, the economy can Is the world's most successful, as the military No one else can. " 40 Between the early 2000s, is generally believed that Strong U.S. national can obtain verification from four perspectives, the first is the global impact and projection covers the military can Force, followed by the leading economic development continue to sit tight position, again with the third wave of industrial revolution and are able to more upper Building energy technology and, finally, is the hot topic invincible hand of vulgar popular culture. No matter the face of U.S. hegemony Have a positive or negative evaluation, absolutely no one can deny that it still holds the world to play or leadership role. 41 History tells us that in the long run, a power state of the economic ups and downs and it has become an important global Emperor Between the rise and fall of the country, a clear relationship. There are two reasons: First, a large military organization depends on economic resources Source of support; Second, the international system, the wealth and strength is relative. However, 500 years, any strong Rights are inevitably will embark on the fate of left leaning, just as an example of history all over the United States may be due to excessive Imperial expansion, which led to decline. 42 Carter (Jimmy Carter) times the government's national security adviser Bristol Xin Siji (Zbigniew Brzezinski) the same advantages that the U.S. will eventually be gone now, as the fade rate Degree may be slower than some people want, but definitely faster than most Americans imagine, and the present, in which the United States fails to Kind of a slow process. 43 On the current international status, the world's only superpower of the United States today is no longer dependent on a consensus seems to be leading Lead, but the United States in world affairs by the advantages of growing U.S. global position and national interests, and the other 39 Dumo translation, Prestowitz (Clyde prestowitz) original, "American Game" (Rogue Nation), (Taipei: Locus of Edition, 2004), page 12. 40 With the previous note, page 14-17. 41 Cai Dongjie, < Reality and fantasy: Reflections on American hegemony and then > , Brzezinski original "America's Choice" (The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership), (Taipei: Left Bank cultural publication, 2004), the Chinese version of the preamble. 42 Zhang Chunbo, land is the translation of St. Paul. Kennedy (Paul Kennedy) the original "Rise and Fall of hegemony" (Taipei: Wu-Nan Publishing, 1995 Years), pages 4-23. 43 Guo Xicheng translation, Brzezinski original "America's Choice" (The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership), (Taipei: Left Bank cultural publication, 2004), p. 21. Page 2 20 Side but also dominate the world gradually lost its legitimacy; Therefore, the United States compete in the global power of the stirring process Dissatisfaction is becoming increasingly apparent, all the world as the US-led, and even the United States has led to weakening of the international image as a "flow Rogue state "; 911 countries around the world after the original incident support or sympathy for the United States has gradually become a real implementation of global terrorism Is motivated concerns. Section The right to compete for the United States First, the selfishness, the priority of interest The United States in maintaining its national sovereignty, its strong national security in maintaining global stability. However, the global Of the wave but dilute the traditional concept of national sovereignty. U.S. hegemony and the status of global security and stability can not be Replaced, however, because the United States is the world's hegemony, it is natural that some people follow, or become the target of hatred. U.S. insistence on maintaining their own national sovereignty, as opposed to the international response seems to be becoming increasingly overlooked. United States Globalization at the same time in pitching, but also became the target of public criticism because of globalization, the United States, the United States will of course have a more More demanding than other countries' security reasons. However, the so-called "American national security," its definition of how? No On a conservative or aggressive security design, as well as technology rapidly changing international situation, the United States to face its security Threat, it seems important is not how to define, but how to expand. U.S. special status in the world, indeed all countries recognized. Many countries may not like the United States, or they Do not believe that the United States, and even some countries simply hate or hatred of the United States. However, in practice, no country can directly Then against the United States in the foreseeable future, the U.S. is still the indispensable force safeguarding world stability and to the United States The only challenge comes from within the United States; if not American democracy would veto this power, the United States In a global misuse this power. The misuse of this power would damage the U.S. position or lose legitimacy. 44 In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush (George W. Bush) control global warming, rejected the "Kyoto Protocol" (Kyoto Protocol), the British London "Guardian" (Guardian) reports alleged that: "The United States" can not or Lack of state ", and gradually become like the ultimate rogue state. Not the United States under Bush governance leaders group of London, but is Increasingly tend to an enemy with the international community. ... The United States stands nationalist rhetoric: we need to do what to do ... you Unhappy, very good. " 45 Bush administration took office, foreign affairs operation often found tough measures for international organizations or agreements, and more 44 Guo Xicheng translation, Brzezinski original "America's Choice", op book, pages 14-23. 45 "A Dirty Business: Mr. Bush Has Put US Credibility on the Line," Guardian, March 30, 2001, p. 21. Page 3 21 Holds quite alert and protective psychological, and believe that U.S. policy would damage the interests or national. For example: U.S. imports of steel products imposed on the emergency tariff measures adopted unilaterally; on agricultural products significantly improve the overall agricultural Industry subsidies; 46 The International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court, ICC) insisted on the establishment and operation Immunity of U.S. troops overseas; in environmental issues, refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol; to develop and deploy a national fly Missile defense system (National Media Defense, NMD), at exit-ballistic missile treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ABM) ... and so on, triggering a global fuss. All these, were all trying to get rid of and prevent international Organizations or treaties of the United States, the fetters, in order to obtain the maximum of U.S. unilateralism interests and freedom. Side of the Bush administration Still seek international support, but even the United Nations when the international community has doubts about the U.S. unilateral action, the United States will Continue to warn and to improve posture, said that even if international or without UN authorization is not supported, the United States will take Action, the Bush administration's hard-line attitude of the international community, in fact, served as President of the United States are rare. 47 The end of 2006, the Bush administration for the first time publicly acknowledged Gongyi battle fails 48 With the war in Iraq remain The rising number of U.S. casualties, the effectiveness of anti-terrorism operations within the foreseeable future, are sitting on the international real serious the Bush administration Jun criticism, and the U.S. Democratic Party and the domestic public dissatisfaction with government's foreign policy failures, and this series of quite Controversy and caused America's image, strength of significant damage, the Bush administration seems to have responsibility. Second, the choice of U.S. hegemony and the debate 911 events around the United States led international affairs, as well as the development of the war on terror will produce those changes, Several directions from the following observation: First, from the post-Cold War era of global competition point of view. Since the Cold War the international community into the era of globalization, all Wei ball doctrine for international mainstream. Fall of the Berlin Wall from 1989 to 1991 the Soviet Union, the international confrontation between two strong The end of the Cold War, the dominance of the United States seems to indulge in the prosperity of the empire can not help but arrogant; However, the international situation Development but not by a single power of cognitive or decision can be carried out or request globalization. 49 Second, post-Cold War international terrorist activities and war crisis is still emerging, as the global leader The United States has frequently set off for their own interests, disputes resulting division of the world. International community has objected to or challenged the United States 46 Dumo translation, Prestowitz (Clyde prestowitz) original, op book, page 19. 47 "Bush's Iraq Policy Stalled in UN," New York Times, October 3, 2002, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-US-Iraq.html 48 "United Daily News", December 25, 2006, A14 version 49 Francis. Fukuyama (Francis Fukuyama) are remarkable in their book "History of the End" (The End of History) in Debate, social development and the process is simply a sense of trust, if the lack of feeling, social welfare can not be established. The only established From the strong social basis of the common people, it may be to establish trust. Page 4 22 Are the Arab countries, France, Germany, following the footsteps of the United States is the United Kingdom, Japan, Philippines, World Divided into two sides continue to fight. Third, the 911 incident, the U.S. view of the world upheaval, which, in the homeland security priorities of the pre-conditions, State efforts to combat terrorism, to "pre-emptive," "unilateralism" and "setting up pro-American regime" and other policy guidance To maintain the security of the United States relies instead on the means, the following three of the United States on the main content of the new global concept of observation: (A), the United States can unilaterally determined which organization or country will harm the U.S. or global. Determined unilaterally by the United States a threat to international security culprit, even without evidence, such as Iraq, Saddam Hussein, said: "From Not a large number of nuclear weapons storage or manufacturing. " Bush's response was: "can not be without." Thus invasion of Iraq force Opposite. Another case is North Korea's Kim Jong Il has repeatedly stated publicly that North Korea has nuclear weapons. 50 Bush was a try Figure negotiations. The other is the ongoing nuclear experiments in Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf (President Musharraf), United States President Bush even allied, it seems that there is a clear double standard. (B), so long as a threat to any country, without UN consent, the United States can wage war. The second war in Iraq before the war, the United States, while still trying to solve the problem through international organizations, however, even without Consent or authorization from the United Nations or the United States insisted last attack Iraq. The United States bent on maintaining its Body of interest, many countries have no lack of military support or funding, although there are international opponents, but each dish Count few countries dare come out against it; and after the war in Iraq by the United States to determine the distribution of benefits. Two Gulf War Support the U.S. countries, but there is more support for the first time, but opposed the second, showing that there is really no reason for U.S. invasion France to persuade the allies, but even so, the United States continues to seek the enemy in the world, and also entered the world Unlimited war situation. (C) the use of force to overthrow a hostile regime, military occupation, to foster pro-American regime. The United States believes to overthrow the autocratic countries, nationals of the country can not succeed alone, the only way is to rely on the United States His troops, only the use of force in order to implement American-style democracy, because Americans believe that democracy, capitalism Compete with the free world is the best system of human society, while the U.S. has the responsibility to develop these systems around the world. As If the whole world into a free and democratic country, terrorism is no living space, while the United States can no high pillow 50 "United Daily News", October 10, 2006, A4 version. Global headlines: North's official Korean Central News Agency claimed that was on 95.10.9 Lunch 10:36 successful completion of the first underground nuclear test, among the world's ninth nuclear state owned, rapidly increasing tensions in Northeast Asia, China The international community condemned. Page 5 23 Worry. On a particular point of view, this may be good or "idealism", the United States not simply because of economic factors Certain powers to fight or compete, but whether it is logical to think this problem will be the world "American" and force the use of "foreign To the revolutionary "approach to change the world, rather than" problem "countries reform their own people," American democracy "? Is necessary for his country, the United States seems to be considered limited. (D), a just war hegemony. United States and Europe for hundreds of years an unbroken just war (just war) tradition, really should try to avoid war, but For the maintenance of unarmed, innocent person, still the use of force. In other words, not weapons, targeting innocent enemy, wars Can not be used as a means, is universal, "just war" value. View the early 21st century, the United States launched Afghanistan and the war in Iraq is consistent with this principle? Discussed in accordance with the United States saying a just war, Afghanistan and Breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq either, or is to have weapons of mass destruction, the innocent and the United States threatened Human reason to wage war to safeguard their own security. However, the U.S. military into A, during the war in Iraq two countries also attack the general population. To maintain the safety of Americans and Aggression, killing women and children Kai countries are not contradictory? However, the U.S. government did not apologize nor compensate for, the traditional justice The war destroyed exhaustive. Furthermore, the Western world has always existed in 1648 "Westphalian system" (Westphalia system), 51 That is, respect each other sovereign state sovereignty and the establishment of "the inviolability of borders" of Diplomatic understanding. 17th century, Germany 30 years after the war with France, Sweden and signed the Peace of Westphalia, 52 Recognize the independence of Switzerland and the Netherlands, thus expanding the territory of France and Sweden. This treaty is considered to be Western Europe from the Middle Ages into the Into the modern turning point, but also into the world order was the prototype. However, this structure was destroyed by the U.S. war on terror Destroyed, the original member of the United Nations, United Nations based on respect for national sovereignty of Iraq, hoping to strengthen the nuclear inspection Check the way to resolve the conflict of war, but the U.S. does not want foreign interference and blatant war, Iraq's sovereignty does not seem to get Due respect and protection. 53 The future of the international situation is bound to continue the US-led, in other words, as long as the U.S. wants to overthrow a country that Regime, that country would most likely collapse in the process, or else other countries allied with the United States, or else Nothing. However, the U.S. does not mean the world to support a strong, international, "United States is too arrogant," "savage no 51 Compile the CPC Central Committee, Deputy Secretary Yu Ping: Complete the modern sense of the concept of national sovereignty in the mid-17th century with the Westphalia Leah system have formed. After the nation-state has been the core of human political life. Nation-state based on the well-known The above three elements: territory, sovereignty and the people. Until now, such a nation-state is still the real center of political life, and thus The basic thought is that people rely on political lies. 52 End of the 1618-48 year, "Thirty Years War" and "Peace of Westphalia" (The Peace of Westphalia), a modern Western sovereign states of the international order basis. See http://liberalstudies.nyss.edu.hk/articles.htm. 53 Xiao Zhiqiang translation, Mainichi Shimbun edited by Foreign Ministry, "see the world from the map disputes", (Taipei: Shi Chao Publishing, 2005), pages 10-14. Page 6 24 Reasonable "criticism everywhere, that the United States and the world more and more away, even the American League has always been friendly with the United Kingdom, Japan This, the second of its domestic public on the legitimacy of the war in Iraq also made many protests and accusations. On the international political reality, even if the future of the United States of different political parties in power, in order to safeguard U.S. interests and National security, persist in anti-terrorist action for the position, it seems difficult to loose the United States, the U.S. government to promote freedom around the world And democratic "mission" will not be reduced. The future, the United States as in the past will continue to revel in the distorted mirror Face image, or from someone else's point of view to understand their true condition, and the world is closely related to the future development of the situation. Eye The former case, disturbing world disputes, I am afraid will continue. 54 The tendency to compete for global power, the United States will continue Continue leading the existing dominant position, in order to ensure its global superpower hegemony unchallenged. President Bush has finally admitted in late 2006, the United States did not win the war in Iraq; North Korea and Iran Nuclear issue, but also to monopolize the world hegemony of the United States helpless. The power for the expansion of globalization, George Washington University School of International Affairs Ait slightly Distinguished Professor Luo Sennuo (James N. Rosenau) noted that globalization Under the power just an illusion, especially in the United States influence in the world has been declining. 55 United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan Farewell speech to the American people have implied, to the Bush administration unilateralism and hegemonic mentality to deal with international affairs, into the Lack of legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq. Annan also pointed out that in the Age of Terrorism, "no one country can be overridden by other countries seeking On leaving their own safety. " 56 In order to observe the Bush administration's foreign relations, not difficult to find the United States as a hegemonic mentality and have attracted considerable More negative impact. One of the founders of the United States, United Nations, President Truman said: "The powers not responsible for world domination Industry people, but for the world people, "President George W. Bush for international sometimes brought the American people is also the well-being Are conflicts, the United States insisted on the international war is just starting inspection by, the answer seems obvious. Three, only the military is still, the Friends of the non-enemy 911 before the events, the United States against limited long as the enemy, to deal with hazardous under the definition of U.S. national security, The United States has always been consistent with the approach is not support military intervention against the regime. 57 911 events, the United States launched Global war on terror, "is not a comrade, is the enemy", black-white dichotomy is undoubtedly the world split into two, Political problems between the country's most serious health dismantling the hard gray area caused by an infinite troubles. After World War II, Around the United States sent troops overseas record (see Appendix I: Summary of state terrorism events), from the military during the Cold War 54 Xiao Zhiqiang translation, Mainichi Shimbun edited by Foreign Ministry, "see the world from the map disputes", (Taipei: Shi Chao Publishing, 2005), pages 10-14. 55 "United Daily News", December 25, 2006, A10 version. 56 "United Daily News", December 13, 2006, A14 version. 57 Terrorist activities in other countries in the fifth chapter details. Page 7 25 Thing intervention, intervention internal affairs, to call the coalition invasion of Iraq in 1991, led by NATO in 1999 to fight Kesuo Fu, to War on terror after the September 11 attacks, the first is the collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2003, despite UN objections Jubing the liberation of Iraq ..., the U.S. military advantage has been counting on the world stage and aspect, and now the whole world is asking: America's next goal is to who? June 1, 2002, President Bush declared in a speech at West Point, the U.S. government to defend the United States Freedom and people's lives and, when necessary, pre-emptive action will lead to world outcry. Little do they know abuse Defining the enemy's power, or carelessly defined the definition of terrorism will change the world look at America's side Type, it will change the historical status of the United States and even the fate of mankind, and to create an isolated or surrounded by enemies Hegemony. Encountered by the United States and the world will become increasingly serious threat, whether it is all-pervasive acts of terrorism or The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. war on terror will hit it when a really worrying? United States New York Times (The New York Times), Washington Post (The Washington Post) and Los Angeles Angeles Times (The Los Angeles Times) and three major newspapers, recently reported that the U.S. intelligence community since the Iraq War, The first of terrorism: "Trends in Global Terrorism: the impact of the United States," the official assessment report. United States Director of National Intelligence Negroponte (John Negroponte), said that this is a completed April 2006 Classified "National Intelligence Estimate" (National Intelligence Estimate, NIE) report: Iraq war War has worsened the global terrorist threat, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 actions, as Islamic radicals, a major recruiting tool for new blood, and inspire a new generation of the mode of operation is different from the fear of the past Terrorist elements; and Islamic radicalism around the world have sprung up, and that the war in Iraq is Jihad Elements spread of the ideology. 58 Although President Bush are speaking from the high-level Washington has repeatedly claimed that the United States has hit "the 911 terrorist attacks." Culprit "Al Qaeda" (Al-Qaeda) organization's leadership, 59 A significant reduction in Osama bin Laden (Osama Bin Laden) The ability to directly instigate terrorism. This report considers that the war in Iraq as violence into a new radical Islamic raise The main virtue of the member, and members of the global growth rate, surpassing the United States and its allies to reduce the threat of force. President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney repeatedly argued that the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein regime, the Americans more secure, and now The report makes Bush and Cheney's argument untenable. The new assessment report released by the obtained results are: Iraq war has not only become a global counter-terrorism efforts last part of the victory, only worsened the U.S. position. New St. 58 "China Times", September 25, 2006, A14 version; "United Daily News", September 25, 2006, A4 version. 59 The paper quoted the translation of proper nouns, in principle, to use Taiwan idiom. Such as Al-Qaeda, Taiwan to "Al Qaeda organization" translation Of the CPC to "Al Qaeda" call; see China, Europe and Asia Foundation, co-Reform Forum, "US-China relations after the war on terror and The situation in the Taiwan Strait "(Taipei: Datun published, Republic of 92 years), pages v-vi proper noun table. Page 8 26 War and organizations will be more endless, if this trend continues, the United States faced in the domestic and overseas Threat will be more diverse, and attacks around the world will continue to increase. 60 Purely on military or economic capability, the United States does have enough ability to beat any Afghan or He Zhongdong countries, the United States will undoubtedly continue to maintain the security of Israel so that it occupied the West Bank and Gaza to go Gallery of the land, of course, have the ability to deal with severe Iraq, Iran, North Korea or Syria evil Axis. Limited military operations can temporarily solve the problem of anti-American hatred of the United States without contributing to the growth of discontent, but no Method to deal with the spread of terrorism and crisis, and finally it may be of interest to U.S. security and buried inside. Section II only I alone strongly U.S. national security during the Cold War strategic objectives, the basic structure and argument no different: namely, containment, Wai Blocking the Soviet Union and its allies. Once the Cold War, to prevent any possible hostile camp to compete with the United States, the U.S. Began to gradually adjust its national security strategy. Basically, both from the Persian Gulf War, the Kosovo crisis or NATO's eastward expansion, U.S. national strategic priorities have tended to curb the power of regional challenges and the formation of multi-polarization. In the 911 incident, the U.S. significantly re-adjust the tone of the old security strategy to strengthen the world's only super- Strong posture, stress defense and homeland security led Global War on Terrorism, while the development in response to the new situation, outside the U.S. Core of the policy to pay to promote U.S. democratic values are also shifted by the maintenance of democracy and national security. A change in the military hegemony Superior military power is unipolar global power to compete for the United States the most important support, but also the importance of the current world situation Focus. After the September 11 attacks and the Iraq war, U.S. military strategy to gradually accelerate the expansion of comprehensive adjustment and strengthen the military Matter power, and military strategic change and adjust the overseas military to ensure America's global military strength of the show, into the The establishment and expansion of pre-emptive attack strategy is more effective. Bush administration "pre-emptive" national security strategy, labeled the United States will enter a new order of global strategy Section, on the other hand also marked a new global security system will have a more acute contradictions and conflicts. "Preemptive" war Slightly, in essence, is the strategy of military strength and ability to attack specific military show, "The enemy can not see neither a declaration of war See the enemy's time, waiting for the enemy to attack first, is not self-defense, but a suicide. " In face of enemy attack Before the first attack hit the enemy, 61 That is "pre-emptive" strategy formulation, this category also represents the United States was 60 "China Times", September 25, 2006, A14 version; "United Daily News", September 25, 2006, A4 version. 61 "American Time magazine," April 15, 2003. Page 9 27 911 merciless attacks may also be in the same way inexorably to violence with violence. Since the Bush administration to fully extend its military strength as the primary task. September 30, 2001, the United States Department of Defense issued a "Quadrennial Defense Review Process" (Quadrennial Defense Review Report, QDR) explicitly Proposed expansion of the strategic policy of strength, strategic focus, strategic means and strategic objectives. The first was published in early 2002 Copies of "nuclear posture review" (Nuclear Posture Review, NPR), the content will focus on strategic goals claims Limited implementation of pre-emptive nuclear attack. September 20, 2002, "U.S. National Security Strategy Report" (The National Security Strategy of the United States of America) more clearly that the United States will remain the world's The most powerful, can defeat any opponent's military forces will never allow any country or non-state actors, for Pose a threat to the United States superpower status, but also not allow any state or non-state actors, expanded the democratic forces of the United States Pose a threat to the policy, if the event of this threat, the United States will be decisively eliminated. 62 In April 2003, the United States Department of Defense announced another new "transition program guide," and proposed a new revolution in military affairs to accelerate the overall program, 63 All these are shows that the U.S. global military hegemony to ensure the strength and determination. August 15, 2002, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (Donald Rumsfeld) are submitted to Congress, "Defense The report, "the core issue is how the U.S. defense should meet the new threats posed by" challenge " (Challenges). 64 The United States in the face of such a major event like 911 damage, the response to frustration arising from the new "change Reform "should be natural, however, strategic change of thinking plant should be based on where? 911 before the events of strategic vision they really That can not meet the new challenges? Following the post-Cold War security environment changes and the "deterrence" strategy and "preemptive" Strategy to explore two aspects of U.S. strategic thinking and practice. First: The changing post-Cold War security environment In American history, in addition to the civil war, has never been subjected to domestic or foreign attack. The only analogy in 1941 with December 7 Japanese attack on "Pearl Harbor" event, 65 Not even in the United States. However, September 11, 2001 Terrorist attacks, not only destroyed a symbol of U.S. financial wealthy New York "Gemini" building, even on behalf of national security Major indicators of Defense, "Pentagon" can not be spared, and this has been away from the war will undoubtedly hurt the United States, Is a nightmare, a traditional "forward deployment", "force projection" overseas unmanning way for new types of threat of war, Are totally helpless. Also increased from the traditional definition of an enemy country, at any time into a possible "terrorist copies 62 "The United States New York Times", September 20, 2002. Http://www.nytimes.com 63 Zhong Yang appropriate, < The new U.S. military strategy of hegemony > , "Contemporary Asia-Pacific", 2004, No. 4, page 16. 64 See the Washington Times & Washington Post, August 16, 2002, p. 1. 65 John Lewis Gaddis, "A Grand Strategy of Transformation," at (Http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_novdec_2002/gaddis.html) Page 10 28 Child ", and terrorist activities from the traditional hostage kidnappings, bombings, sabotage and other limited attacks, mixed into that Killing and destruction of human shock move. Changes in the security situation in the past, security thinking and practice on behalf of the ill-considered, also reflects the emergence of the deployment of military forces And configuration problems. Traditional national defense construction, deployment of troops and security thinking, is in response to the Cold War bipolar cell Council's strategic situation after the Cold War, however, change in strategy use and adjustment of strategic thinking to cope with new security ring Heard throughout the call, but no U.S. government the appropriate response. On Colin S. Gray and Keith B. Payne Point of view, the two leaders agreed that the traditional "deterrence" can no longer thinking in response to changing international strategic situation. 66 And Gray even questioned the legitimacy of the traditional deterrence point of view, he believes the post-Cold War international community interaction, is built Stand by the United States led the international community, war is inevitable pattern of development of asymmetric (asymmetric) kind of state. Therefore, the traditional "nuclear deterrence" (nuclear deterrence) and "mutual assured destruction" (mutual assured destruction MAD) thinking, strategic thinking is outdated. 67 And Payne said, still used in the United States during the Cold War Polarization strategy designed to cope with today's international situation, regional issues mainly, the inevitable inadequacy of embarrassment Conditions. If it is not appropriate to adjust deterrence of strategic thinking, not only threaten U.S. hegemony and the national interest, but will fall Stagger the international community in the chaos chaos. 68 However, even if the international security environment has been changing, with the use of U.S. strategic thinking has not been substantially changed, In fact the ideal and the reality of the conflict should be the inevitable result. Blame the crux of the problem: no post-Cold War Obvious source of threat, enough to adjust as the basis for U.S. national strategy; if any, to existing U.S. military or Economic power capacity, are sufficient to solve any problems; In addition, the US-led "one superpower and many" international system results Structure, no changes may be necessary, and this is President Bush since he took office, has repeatedly stressed that development. Thing In fact, the original design of the strategy during the Cold War and even caused the collapse of the "Soviet Union" should be no need to change the status A national security strategy is reasonable and necessary. In fact, even before the September 11 attacks in the United States changed the Cold War During the strategic thinking, 911 events would not have happened if there are a lot of controversy. In addition, President Bush assumed office, According to Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment (Andrew Marshall's Office of Net Assessment), provides strategic environment Net assessment report showed that long-term U.S. strategic goal of national defense should be committed to building long-range strike systems 66 Colin S. Gray, "Deterrence in the 21th Century," Comparative Strategy, Vol. 19, No.3 (July-September 2000), pp. 255-6; Keith B. Payne, The Fallacies of Cold War Deterrence and a New Direction (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2001), pp. 39-44; Abram N. Shulsky, Deterrence Theory and Chinese Behavior (California, Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 2000), pp. 35-41. 67 Gray, "Deterrence in the 21th Century," Comparative Strategy, 255-6; See also in John Arquilla, "Bound to Fail: Regional Deterrence after the Cold War, "Comparative Strategy, Vol. 14, No. 2 (April-June 1995), pp. 123-134. 68 Also in Keith B. Payne, Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 17. Page 11 29 (Long-range strike system), to cope with the future strategy for CCP with the increasingly robust competition. 69 Thus, no People can be expected to change in the situation from occurring, even if the actual strategic thinking with the changing environment and adjust, 911 events are Difficult to avoid. Therefore, no matter the situation or on the international perspective of strategic change, it seems can not find this both with 911 Any causal relationship between events. In other words, strategic thinking, change of course should be changed with the changing external environment, However, changes in the environment and realize the extent of the threat definition, but it is a subjective perception, and this subjective Cognitive strategies by the old constraints of culture and thinking deep, this is not a few cautionary reports, or a few words is enough to promote Into a significant change in the status quo. 70 Furthermore, the direction should be toward the strategic change there? There is sufficient because of the magnitude of change in strain Bureau? There are still many More worthy of discussion, therefore, not so much U.S. strategic thinking and practice not align with the pulse of the times, rather Environmental changes is the formation of the United States a "threat" perception gap generated, coupled with their ability to cope over Yishi until The fact that after the threat into the "experience", was forced to U.S. strategic thinking to be adjusted. However, according to the aforementioned causal Logic point of view, the strategic transformation of the realignment does not necessarily equal success, does not mean the threat from release. On the contrary, With the threat of U.S. strategic adjustment will change, what type of future will there also is not known. Specifically, The uncertainty of the U.S. strategic adjustment is: Born in the face of a group of home-givers of no dead body of the country "terrorist copies Son, "the U.S. strategic change is effective not only worth watching, even more questionable. Second: "deterrence" strategy and "preemptive" strategy Traditional "deterrence" refers to a force by the dialectical relationship with each other to achieve the two sides "to maintain the current Like "(statusquo) purposes. 71 In other words, "deterrence" is intended to achieve "psychological" level of significance, by The "worth" of logic, so that a potential aggressor to give up the intention to wage war. Although the "deterrence" in
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Who wrote this crap? It makes no sense whatsoever...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
It is a google translation of something I found of a Chinese website while playing around.
I gave up three paragraphs in...it makes no sense...
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
You able to work in this weather?
America...My Kind Of Place... "I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]..." "THE MILITIA IS COMING!!! THE MILITIA IS COMING!!!" I lurk to see if someone other than Myst or Pookie posts anything...
Some behavior is tantamount to satirize their own values, which would make the United States and its allies to expand the growing gap between the risk Large.
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#2. To: war (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
#4. To: A K A Stone (#2)
--GW Bush
--Sarah Palin's version of "The Midnight Ride of Paul revere"
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]