Revisiting Established Doctrine in an Age of Risk
Oct 2005, Vol. 150, No. 5
By Michael Williams
While many hoped that the passing of the Soviet Union would herald a new world order, the resulting reality would be more akin to new world disorder. Ethnic cleansing in Africa and Europe, rampant drug trafficking in South America and Asia, rogue states in the Middle East and Pacific Rim all made the world much riskier and disordered than the divided and static Cold War system of East, West and Non-Aligned. No longer is the West confronted by monolithic threats such as Soviet tanks and warheads, now there is a variety of security challenges and risks to be managed. Today the Alliance was taking a step away from its traditional domain as a defensive organization to a more proactive risk-management position. If the United States and Europe are going to continue to work together in an age of risk they need to engage in serious discussion about doctrines of preemption, their feasibility and long-term ramifications. Instead, the US dismissed European concerns and many European states have pushed pre-emption off the table without earnest dialogue about the concept, despite the fact that its roots lie in the thoroughly accepted (within Europe) precautionary principle. It is perhaps time, then, to look at the concept of the precautionary principle, its connection to pre-emptive war and the possible ramifications for NATO and military doctrine.
Add your comments
By Michael Williams
While many hoped that the passing of the Soviet Union would herald a new world order, the resulting reality would be more akin to new world disorder. Ethnic cleansing in Africa and Europe, rampant drug trafficking in South America and Asia, rogue states in the Middle East and Pacific Rim all made the world much riskier and disordered than the divided and static Cold War system of East, West and Non-Aligned. No longer is the West confronted by monolithic threats such as Soviet tanks and warheads, now there is a variety of security challenges and risks to be managed. Today the Alliance was taking a step away from its traditional domain as a defensive organization to a more proactive risk-management position. If the United States and Europe are going to continue to work together in an age of risk they need to engage in serious discussion about doctrines of preemption, their feasibility and long-term ramifications. Instead, the US dismissed European concerns and many European states have pushed pre-emption off the table without earnest dialogue about the concept, despite the fact that its roots lie in the thoroughly accepted (within Europe) precautionary principle. It is perhaps time, then, to look at the concept of the precautionary principle, its connection to pre-emptive war and the possible ramifications for NATO and military doctrine.
You need 4 credits to access this item
If you are a member or registered user, please login
Not already a member and have not yet registered?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2009 RUSI