...spreading and terrorists and rogue states were readying to attack in unconventional ways, Bush argued that "the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first."21 Indeed, the United States should be prepared to act...

...along with the age of militant class struggle and nationalism, the age of deterrence has also passed. "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past." Against such enemies, preemptive war is the only...

...unleashed."5 Noting the willingness of terrorists to use any method to achieve any aim, the report states that "the United States can no longer solely rely on a...inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of todays threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice...

...comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the l.'mted States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture...past. The inability to deter a potential attacker. Ihe immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm lhat could be caused by our adversaries"...

...Bush administration's National Security Strategy openly embraces preventive war. It reads, in part: "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the...

...cold war period: It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the...rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first. . . . To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our...

...September 2002 (released September 20, 2002; see www.whitehouse.gov, for the full text) it is stated that "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We must adopt the concept of imminent threat...

...doctrine of providence in the doctrine of preemption? The 2002 National Security Strategy document states, "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past."20 Preemption, like predetermination, is proaction,...

...replacement for the Cold War strategy of containment. Employing classic preventive war logic, it argued that "Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely solely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our enemies strike first."2...

...threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . . The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy...our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit [the] option [of merely reacting]. We cannot let our enemies strike first." The paper then sought to...