ちらほらニュースが流れていますが、ブッシュ政権が、2002年9月に発表した「国家安全保障戦略」の見直しをおこなうようです。2002年の「国家安全保障戦略」文書は、いわゆる先制攻撃戦略を明らかにしたもの。はてさて、先制攻撃戦略そのものの見直しになるのかどうか、注目したいと思います。
先制攻撃の戦略文書改訂へ 米政権、3年5カ月ぶり（山陽新聞）
先制攻撃の戦略文書改訂へ 米政権、3年5カ月ぶり
【ワシントン6日共同】ブッシュ米政権が来月、敵対国家やテロ組織に対する単独先制攻撃を容認した2002年9月発表の政策文書「米国の国家安全保障戦略」（ブッシュ・ドクトリン）を約3年5カ月ぶりに見直し、改訂版を発表する見通しとなった。6日付の英紙フィナンシャル・タイムズが報じた。
冷戦時代からの抑止力重視の安保政策を大きく転換した同文書発表から約半年後、米政権は実際にイラクへの先制攻撃を強行。しかし、開戦の最大の大義とした大量破壊兵器は見つからず、国内外から批判を招いているだけに、改訂内容が注目されそうだ。（山陽新聞 1月7日10時45分掲載）
でもって、これがそのフィナンシャル・タイムズの記事だと思われます。だれか翻訳してくれ? （＾＾；）
US in final stage of national security revamp(FT.com)
US in final stage of national security revamp
By Caroline Daniel in Washington
Published: January 5 2006 22:05 | Last updated: January 5 2006 22:11The White House is in the final stages of updating its National Security Strategy document, the first formal reassessment of its foreign policy posture since the landmark 2002 paper that set the stage for pre-emptive strikes against terrorist threats.
The revised version is expected to be published next month, administration officials confirmed. It is being drafted by National Security Council officials, led by Peter Feaver, a former Duke University academic, but has not yet been presented to President George W. Bush for approval.
The September 2002 document, which marked the most profound shift in US foreign and security policy since President Harry S. Truman in 1947 laid out the strategy of containing the Soviet Union, provoked controversy by claiming the right to strike unilaterally and pre-emptively against hostile states and terrorists groups seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction. The US invaded Iraq six months later.
The new document will mark the first time Stephen Hadley, national security adviser, has put his stamp on the administration’s security policy. Condoleezza Rice, now secretary of state, led the 2002 review.
NSC officials declined to comment on what changes were likely to be made to the existing strategy. However, analysts predicted it would emphasise nation-building and the problems of weak states, rather than the targeting of rogue states. Many of the key themes of the 2002 document were mentioned by Mr Bush in speeches ahead of its publication, suggesting that his recent four keynote Iraq speeches will set the tone of the current review.
Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said: “In 2002 the fundamental nature of the threat was al-Qaeda and links with state sponsors, and was about rogue states. The president’s speeches over the last three, four months have identified the threat away from states to an organised group of extremist ideologists, and that democracy is the way to counter that. None of that is in the 2002 document, so there is a re-evaluation of the threat.”
Some neo-conservatives expressed concern that the updated document could mark a retreat from the more assertive positions of 2002, such as pre-emption, the signature strategy of the administration.
Gary Schmitt, resident scholar at the AEI , the American Enterprise Institute and and former executive director of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, said: “This will be interesting to watch, as everyone dissects every sentence and paragraph to see if there is some change of course, some sign the president is less ‘neo-con’ in the strategic path he has set the country on.”
The review coincides with the quadrennial defence review, which is due next month and will redirect military priorities. Defence department officials have warned contractors to expect flatter budgets.