Bush doctrine of pre-emption - action or rhetoric?

President George W. Bush's emerging new "doctrine" of pre-emptive action against hostile states and groups developing weapons of mass destruction could mark the biggest shift in US strategic thinking in 50 years, analysts say.

But it depends on whether his pledge to strike first against enemies before they attack the United States turns out to be more concrete action plan than just rhetoric. Past presidents had the same pre-emption tool in their foreign policy repertoire but chose not to use it.

"What is at stake is nothing less than a fundamental shift in America's place in the world," according to Prof. William Galston of the University of Maryland.

"Rather than continuing to serve as first among equals in the postwar international system, the United States would act as a law unto itself, creating new rules of international engagement without agreement by other nations... a new stance (that) would ill-serve" long-term US interests, the former aide to President Bill Clinton wrote in The Washington Post.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said Bush's approach is "not new, except that the president has made it in a formal statement".

But it has value because it warns enemies they are not immune before they actually attack the United States, he told Reuters.

America's critics may interpret Bush's position "as unilateralism or recklessness. But the question is, do you want an honest statement that serves as a warning and a deterrent or do you want to live in a world of pretend?" he added.

With Washington still struggling to respond to the September 11 attacks and expected future incidents, Bush introduced the idea of pre-emption while addressing Germany's parliament in May.

Then, in a commencement speech at the United Military Academy at West Point, he expanded on the theme, arguing America must be prepared to strike first against "terrorists and tyrants" because Cold War policies of deterrence and containment do not fit the post-September 11 world.

Exactly what Bush means is not clear. His evolving strategy has not been fully spelled out; administration deliberations are not expected to be completed until August.

Generally, however, pre-emption is aimed at al Qaeda, the Islamic militant group blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, as well as countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea, which Bush branded an "axis of evil" and said are developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The premier target is Iraq. US intelligence reportedly has intensified plans to topple President Saddam Hussein as a means of avoiding a full-scale US invasion.

The new pre-emption policy is not expected to espouse the first use of US nuclear weapons, something Washington has never ruled out but has avoided since dropping bombs on Japan in World War Two. It does, however, anticipate conventional military intervention, as well as diplomatic tools.

The emerging strategy reflects the firm belief of administration conservatives that the United States must be able to take any action deemed necessary to defend national security.

"It really means early action of some kind," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told The New York Times in describing administration thinking about pre-emption.

"It means forestalling certain destructive acts against you by an adversary... (There are times) when you can't wait to be attacked to respond," she was quoted as saying.

Such talk has resonated in Europe where it is seen as further evidence that Bush is bent on unilateralism in foreign affairs with little regard for allies' views, said Ivo Daalder, a national security expert at the Brookings Institution who worked in Clinton's White House.

In the United States, there has been little debate. Many do not take pre-emption seriously and others, after September 11, give the government wide latitude to do whatever it takes to combat extremist threats.

One Republican source said he has "no problem with pre-emption as a theory" but believes Bush is accruing too much power to determine on his own America's enemies and military targets. The US Congress, cowed by Bush's high public opinion poll ratings, is not providing checks and balances, he said.

Michele Flournoy and Vinca LaFleur, experts with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Bush is right to preserve a first-strike option.

But, as they stressed in a Washington Post column, "pre-emption should be an option on America's strategic menu - not the strategy itself."

Potential risks are great. The best time for a pre-emptive strike is in the early days of a country's nuclear, biological or chemical programme, experts say. As the programme matures, leaders work harder to protect these capabilities and the task of eliminating the threat becomes more difficult.

But when a weapon of mass destruction programme is in the early stages, it is harder to make a political argument for pre-emptive action and the chance of all-out war increases.

An explicit US threat raises the stakes. "A 'use it or lose it' mentality could make our enemies more reckless, while the desire to preserve US credibility could become a strategic straitjacket for us," Flournoy and LaFleur wrote.

Previous US presidents, including Clinton, had the same option of pre-emption open to them and but seldom used it.

For Clinton, a key moment was the 1993-1994 crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme. He was ready to take pre-emptive military action against Pyongyang but decided first to try negotiations, which worked, producing a landmark deal (now under attack by Bush) that froze the North's programme.

"It's very easy to talk about pre-emption but when you think about how such a strike would play itself out, there are reasons to be worried and wary," Daalder said.

"I have no doubt that if (Bush and his aides) look at the details (of the North Korea case) the things that deterred Clinton (from pre-emptive military action)... are going to play heavily in this case as well," he said.

Critics say Bush must focus more on prevention, working to keep weapons from falling into the wrong hands.