U.S. Does Not Want to Fight Alone

Published in Izvestiya
(Russia) on 24 May 2010
by Catherine Zabrodina (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Iryna Dzyubynska. Edited by Jessica Boesl.
Washington cannot fight modern threats alone, and must apply a "multilateral approach" in implementing foreign policy.

This was stated by U.S. President Barack Obama, who presented a new national security strategy to his countrymen. The American government promised to make the strategy public this week.

Obama spoke to the graduates of West Point — an elite military academy — eight years after his predecessor, George W. Bush, stood on the platform.

Then, in 2002, the American leader presented his national security strategy on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

Bush proclaimed the concept of "preemptive military action" ("preemptive strikes") against countries or terrorist organizations that, in Washington's view, pose a threat to national security. In 2003, as we all know, Iraq was declared such a threat, and American troops were sent in to search for non-existent chemical and biological weapons.

The "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive strike was corrected in 2006. However, the revolution did not happen. "We do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack... We cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize," read the document. At this time, Iran was declared "the greatest threat." Russia got bashed too for "obstacles to spreading freedom," although, initially, Moscow was assigned the role of Washington's ally in the fight against terrorism.

Experts are in unanimous agreement: Obama’s strategy is largely at odds with the approach of the Bush administration. Now, at the core — the bet is on the "international partners." However, it is not surprising: The U.S. is still present in two "hot spots." The international coalition in Afghanistan, which purports to "download" another 30,000 soldiers, is beginning to crumble here and there. At West Point, the president decided to support the spirit of the young warriors, many of whom will soon be on the front lines. "There will be difficult days ahead... I have no doubt that, together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan," he said.

"The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone," said Obama. And he remembered the success of the U.S. anti-Hitler coalition, or during the Cold War. The president made it clear: Americans not only need to strengthen existing alliances, but also "to build new partnerships."

It is noteworthy that in his speech, Obama carefully avoided the term "war on terror." Not to mention the "radical Islam." "Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are part of our national life," declared the U.S. leader.


США не хотят воевать в одиночку
Екатерина Забродина

Вашингтон не может бороться с современными угрозами в одиночку и должен применять "многосторонний подход" при реализациисвоей внешней политики.
Об этом заявил президент Соединенных Штатов Барак Обама, презентуя соотечественникам новую Стратегиюнациональной безопасности страны. Полностью ее обещали обнародовать на этой неделе.
Обама выступил перед выпускниками элитной военной академии Вест-Пойнт через восемь лет после того, как на этой трибуне стоял его предшественник - Джордж Буш-младший.
Тогда, в 2002-м, американский лидер представил свою стратегию национальной безопасности к годовщине терактов 11 сентября.
Буш провозгласил концепцию "упреждающих военных действий" ("preemptive wars") против стран или террористических организаций, которые, с точки зрения Вашингтона, представляют угрозу для безопасности страны. В 2003 году такой угрозой был, как известно, объявлен Ирак, куда и вошли американские войска в поисках несуществующего химического и биологического оружия.
"Доктрину Буша" о превентивном ударе подкорректировали в 2006 году. Впрочем, революции не случилось. "Мы не исключаем возможности применения силы, прежде чем будем атакованы, - даже если остаются сомнения относительно времени и места действий противника. Америка будет реагировать на возникающие угрозы до того, как они полностью сформируются", - гласил документ. На этот раз "самой большой опасностью" объявлялся Иран. Досталось и России - за "препятствия распространению свобод". Хотя изначально Москве отводилась роль союзника Вашингтона в борьбе с терроризмом.
Эксперты единодушны: стратегия Обамы во многом расходится с подходом администрации Буша-младшего. Теперь во главе угла - ставка на "международных партнеров". Впрочем, это неудивительно: США по-прежнему присутствуют в двух "горячих точках". Причем международная коалиция в Афганистане, куда предполагается "закачать" еще 30 тысяч военных, кое-где начинает трещать по швам. В Вест-Пойнте президент решил поддержать дух молодых бойцов, многие из которых скоро окажутся на линии фронта. "Предстоят тяжелые дни. Но я уверен: вместе с нашими союзниками и афганским народом мы добьемся успеха", - заявил он.
"Бремя XXI столетия не может лечь только на плечи наших солдат и американского народа", - сообщил Обама. И припомнил успехи США в составе антигитлеровской коалиции или во времена "холодной войны". При этом президент дал понять: американцам нужно не только укреплять существующие альянсы, но также "искать новых партнеров".
Примечательно, что в своей речи Барак Обама старательно избегал термина "война с террором". Не говоря уже о "радикальном исламе". "Экстремисты хотят войны между США и исламом. Но этого не будет. Мусульмане - это часть нашего общества", - признал американский лидер.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

China: Three Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Topics

Ethiopia: “Trump Guitars” Made in China: Strumming a Tariff Tune

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

China: Three Insights from ‘Trade War Truce’ between US and China

United Kingdom: We’re Becoming Inured to Trump’s Outbursts – but When He Goes Quiet, We Need To Be Worried

Poland: Jędrzej Bielecki: Trump’s Pyrrhic Victory*

Austria: Trump Is Only Part of the Problem

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

Switzerland: Ukraine Is No Longer a Priority for America: Trump Leaves the Country High and Dry

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

1 COMMENT

  1. Pretendident Obama has lied about everything else; why would you believe him on this?

    The only enemy facing the West, or anyone else, for that matter, is the Banking Cartel which uses honest Western farm-boys as soldiers to subjugate nations which do not yet have a Rothschild-owned central bank. Those nations are Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Libya, and Cuba.

    Of all those nations, Iran is the only one with real national mineral wealth, so it’s at the top of the list to be attacked next.

    If you eliminate from the list of terrorist attacks those which were paid for by a third party who did not participate, you find that terrorism is a vanishingly small problem. Hiring terrorism is a larger problem, but it is simply being ignored. You tell me: when a politician ignores a real problem in favor of focusing on an almost non-existent problem, why is s/he doing that?

    Then there’s “extremism.” It’s a code word for “that which is different.” It’s xenophobia being ingrained in the hearts of the people who use it. In a land of liars, one who stands for truth is an extremist. In a land of whores and abusers of women, one who respects virginity or who honors their marriage commitment is an extremist. In a land of the lazy, the industrious man or woman is an extremist.

    If you support the use of this word in any way, you side with the enemy of all mankind. Cease and desist.