The US Post-cold War Military Strategy: From Clinton To Bush

During the cold war, taking Soviet Union as the global rivalry, the weapons of mass destruction as the sword, and the conventional weapons as the shield, US carried out the deterrent strategy to contest with Soviet in politics, military, ideology and other fields through the maintenance of large army.At the beginning of the 90s, Soviet Union suddenly collapsed as one pole so that US lost the global competitor, and also the foreign policy compass. What course the American strategy should follow? George Bush, turning the strategic vision to the regional power, proposed "the Regional Defense Strategy". After Clinton came on stage, he continued this mentality, gave further to develop, and proposed"the Flexible and Selective Engagement Strategy"and" the Shape, Respond, Prepare Now Strategy ", locking the main threats in North Korea, Iraq, Iran as well as other regional powers which "have both the desire and means to challenge the United States", and in addition, the extremism, the religious dispute and other transnational threats. Clinton advocated to take participation in the world business selectively and flexibly, and requested the US military to be able "to win two nearly simultaneous, large-scale, regional wars or theater wars ". This strategy focused on the substantial threat and the future situation, and also ,the structure of the three-level strategy system "prevent—deterrent—respond" was distinct, and orderly. The Clinton administration followed the "leading the world" principle, discretely utilizes the force, and this is a reasonable track which should be followed by the great power, and also a reasonable response.Soon after George Walker Bush came on stage, US suffered from the bitter experience of "9·11" event. Under the new situation, Bush positively went into action. On one hand, he rapidly deployed troops into actual combats: Attacked Afghanistan, subsequently Iraq; On the other hand, formulated a series of strategic documents, providing theoretic support for its action. The Bush's strategic spear rapidly and explicitly aimed at the terrorism and he announced to enter the war. He took"prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction"as the most important task, and in international fields, divided the enemy or friend by whether to overcome terrorism, and pledge: " Before the global terrorism organizations are found, stopped, and smashed, we won't give up." Bush's "preemptive" strategy advocated constructing "the active defense in depth"and constructing "the full spectrum" unified forces to protect US and defeat the enemy. The Bush strategy took the formidable military power as the strut, the national interest as the criterion, and absolute safety as the goal, adopted an advanced and aggressive strategic position, in order to destroy the terror attacks and influence of the hostile country before they become the substantial threat. Both with the strategic theory and the Iraqi war practice, this strategy has aggressive and venturesome nature, and it is the extreme response to the sporadic "9·11" event. It deviates the normal strategy track, and as an expedient measure, it cannot be a long-term implementation. The Iraqi war practice has proved that. To some extent, Bush's strategy has returned to previous condition in his second tenure.The author thinks that, the US military strategy will take"guard against the regional power through traditional deterrence and containment"as a foundation, focus on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and counter-attack non- traditional safe threat similar to terror attack, and strengthen the " asymmetrical" attack method to construct the defense system unified the traditional security strength and the non- traditional security strength.