Rebuilding America's Defenses is referring to a catastrophic event in the context of defense transformation, not merely catastrophic in a general sense. The destruction of "some ships" drove the tactical innovation that led to victory and the development of current naval doctrine. A natural disaster may be a catastrophic event, but it will hardly spur defense transformation now, will it?
All wrong. The event that is called for is one which has 2 distinct qualities: a) catastrophic, and b) catalysing. A tsunami does fit one half of the equation, which is why PNAC modified it with the second half, catalysing. The absurdity of your statement "a catastrophic event
in the context of defense transformation" illustrates this nicely- they are calling for an event that is catastrophic (this is a adjective that can sit on its own), and catalysing (this cannot- catalysing of what?- hence we can safely infer militarily catalyzing).
This should only have taken a couple of seconds thought.
Horribly wrong. America has used pre-emption, or prevention, as justification for numerous military actions since the early 1800's. The "Bush Doctrine" is re-packaged and re-emphasized foreign policy specifically targeted to terrorism supporters, but the United States has used pre-emption as a national security strategy for over one hundred ninety years.
I hope you are not being serious about the "terrorism supporters" statement...
In any case, yes, it is not something "new", granted; however, it is something renewed, at least in terms of governmental policy, which is, in fact, the point. It is taking the US in a different direction, radically different if you examine the whole picture, than it was going before. If you have read what I linked you to, you will see this too.
It is exactly what defense strategists have been advocating since the mid-1990's. What is your point?
What the hell does this matter? Who cares one jot about what strategists have been saying- it is about implementation, and there is a reason why countries havent been invaded and occupied arbitrarilty, why space hasnt been militarised, why cyberspace hasnt been transformed into a defense tool, why nuclear strategy hasnt taken the direction it is taking now for so long, why US troops havent been redeployed to the stations they are now for so long, why the DoD hasnt been transformed with the basis that it is now etc etc etc.
If you have read the links, you will see that it is the WOT/911/RAD that is the premise upon which these strategies are now being pursued, not the words of some military strategist.
And yet you do not. Again, let me reiterate - catastrophic in terms of loss of live does not drive defense transformation. If it did, the nations affected by the tsunami would be currently undergoing defense transformation, right?They are not.
As above. The tsunami was a catastrophic event, but not a catalysing one. You should understand the import of the second adjective, rather than having it subsumed by the 1st.
Secondly, we are not talking solely about catalyzing, we are talking about catalyzing defense transformation. The transformation of the DoD was underway prior to 911. 911 did not drive that process.
The DoD is just one example, and the fact that its transformation was underway does not affect the fact that it is now being pursued under the aegis of the WOT. As you will not need me to explain to you, this will almost certainly give the transformation a bit of a shot in the arm. Understand the difference betweem something being implemented because some people think it is advisable policy, and because people think we in a neverending catastrophic war against and implacable, renewable enemy.
I say 911 was not catalyzing for defense transformation because it is true. The changes called for in the PNAC document were not new or revolutionary; they were what strategists had been saying from 1989 on.
The implementation of them was new; please understand this very simple point.
911 was not the catalyst for those changes; they would have occurred regardless.
a) How do you know this?
b) Why do u think they woudl have been pursued with the vigour that they are now with this cataclysmic "war" as its justification?
911, although catastrophic in many ways, was not catastrophic in any way that affected the defense transformation that was already underway.
As above, in every sense.
