Wolfowitz Doctrine

The "Wolfowitz Doctrine" is an unofficial name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years (dated February 18, 1992).^[1][2][3] The memorandum sparked controversy and was subsequently revised in response to public criticism. It stated that the United States was the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, and declared that its main objective was to preserve that status.

Wolfowitz, Powell, and Schwarzkopf during a press conference with Defense Secretary Dick Cheney on the Gulf War, February 1991

Purpose and status

Its stated aim was to set U.S. defense goals into the next century:

"The choices we make in this new situation will set the nation's direction into the next century." (p. 1)^[4]

It was considered as a definitive guidance for the formulation of the fiscal years 1994-99.

“This section (III. Programming for the Base Force) constitutes definitive guidance from the Secretary of Defense for formulation of the FY 94–99 Program Objectives Memoranda, to be used in conjunction with the Fiscal Guidance published by the Secretary on 14 February 1992.” (p. 20)^[5]

Barton Gellman considered the memorandum to be a near-final draft of the DPG and described it as “long overdue.” In his view, the DPG was “the cornerstone of the defense secretary's policy and strategy.”^[6]

Development

The 46-page internal draft memorandum was prepared under the authority of Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, with contributions from his staff, including his deputy Scooter Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad.

Wolfowitz was ultimately responsible for the Defense Planning Guidance, as it was issued through his office and reflected his overall outlook. The task of preparing the document fell to Libby, who delegated the actual writing of the new strategy to Zalmay Khalilzad, a member of Libby's staff and long-time aide to Wolfowitz. In the initial drafting phase , Khalilzad solicited the views of a wide cross-section of Pentagon insiders and outside experts, including Andrew Marshall, Richard Perle, and Wolfowitz's University of Chicago mentor, nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter.^[7] Khalilzad completed the draft in March 1992 and requested Libby's permission to circulate it within the Pentagon. Libby agreed, and within three days, Khalilzad's draft had been leaked to The New York Times by "an official who believed this post-Cold War strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain."^[8]

Background

According to Barton Gellmann much of the document "parallels the extensive public statements of Defense Secretary Richard B. Cheney and Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Gellmann suggests Cheney and Powell believed that 1992's defense debate was a "pivotal moment" in the development of a post-Cold War security framework. For that reason, he concludes, both have given "unusually detailed briefings" to Congress to explain the "rationale for the force" which they designed after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

Like their public statements, the classified memo emphasizes the virtues of collective action and the central U.S. interest in promoting increased respect for international law and "the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems." Also like their public statements, the document describes a reorientation of U.S. defenses away from the threat of global war with the former Soviet Union and toward potential regional conflicts.

Public Reaction

Although not intended for release, the draft was leaked to The New York Times on March 7, 1992,^[9] and sparked a public controversy over U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialistic, as it outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent hostile powers from rising to superpower status.

One of the most immediate and forceful reactions came from Senator Joe Biden, who argued that a "Pax Americana" with the US as "globocop" meant "a direct slap at two of our closest allies – Germany and Japan." He urged that life be breathed into the UN Charter, "which envisages a permanent commitment of forces for use by the Security Council." Biden quoted the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who had stated that the Pentagon’s approach meant "the end of the UN."^[10][11][12]

Barton Gellman highlighted the passages regarding the role of NATO and Eastern Europe:

In particular, the document raises the prospects of "a unilateral U.S. defense guarantee" to Eastern Europe, "preferably in cooperation with other NATO states," and contemplates use of American military power to preempt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, "even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests."

Gellman also cited academia, which, in his view, was centred, by contrast, on the treatment of Russia. Michael Mandelbaum, a foreign policy analyst at Johns Hopkins University, argued that the logic of preventing the reemergence of a hostile superpower suggested far greater involvement in the economy and democratization of the Russians and the Ukrainians. Yet in the current political debate, Mandelbaum is cited by Gellman, "giving them money seems to be a taboo word."^[13]

Revised version

The public outcry was such that the document was hastily rewritten under the close supervision of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before a revised version was officially released on April 16, 1992.^[14]

The internal paper is not to be mistaken for the officially released National Security Strategy (NSS) 1992.^[15] Yet, according to Mann, Cheney had "liked the revised draft so much that he ordered parts of it to be declassified and made public." Mann refers to a remark by Khalilzad who had recalled that Cheney "took ownership of it". In January 1993, when Bush administration left office, the document was published as America's "Defense Strategy for the 1990s."^[16]

Contents

In his NYT article, Patrick Tyler compared the leaked document with the revised version.^[17] The leaked draft and the revised April version differed substantially in tone and emphasis. While the February draft stressed unilateral action and prevention of rivals, the April text emphasized multilateral cooperation. The following excerpts illustrate the contrasts.

Superpower status

The doctrine announces the United States's status as the world's only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims its main objective to be retaining that status.

Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.

(DPG, Feb 18, 1992 p.2)

This was substantially rewritten in the April 16 release.

Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source, against the United States, its citizens and forces, and to honor our historic and treaty commitments.

The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defence against aggression, builds habits of cooperation, avoids the renationalisation of security policies, and provides security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy.

The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the reemergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies. These regions include Europe, East Asia, the Middle East/Persian Gulf, and Latin America. Consolidated, nondemocratic control of the resources of such a critical region could generate a significant threat to our security.

The fourth goal is to reduce sources of regional instability and limit violence should conflict occur, by encouraging the spread and consolidation of democratic government and open economic systems and discouraging the spread of destructive technology, particularly of weapons of mass destruction. To this end, we must encourage other nations to respect the rule of law and each other's economic, social, and ethnic rights.

(DPG, April 1992, p. 1)

Hal Brands commented on the fundamental goal: "The goal, in other words, was to avoid a return to bipolarity or multipolarity, and to lock in a U.S.-led unipolar order."^[18]

U.S. primacy

The doctrine establishes the U.S.'s leadership role within the new world order.

The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.

This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result.

Unilateralism

The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor.

This was rewritten with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.

Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others.

Preventive Intervention

The doctrine stated the U.S.'s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.

This was softened slightly in the April 16 release.

While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests.

Russian threat

The doctrine highlighted the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia.

We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others... We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.

This was removed from the April 16 release in favor of a more diplomatic approach:

The U.S. has a significant stake in promoting democratic consolidation and peaceful relations between Russia, Ukraine and the other republics of the former Soviet Union.

Middle East and Southwest Asia

The doctrine clarified the overall objectives in the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil. We also seek to deter further aggression in the region, foster regional stability, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways. As demonstrated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, it remains fundamentally important to prevent a hegemon or alignment of powers from dominating the region. This pertains especially to the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, we must continue to play a role through enhanced deterrence and improved cooperative security.

The April 16 release was more circumspect, and it reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel as well as its Arab allies.

In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel.

Legacy

Many of its tenets re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine,^[19] which Senator Edward M. Kennedy described as "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."^[20]

Between the 1992 Planning Guidance and the election of George W. Bush, the ideas of the DPG draft reverberated in neoconservative publications and campaigns, while being rejected in the official policy of President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001. The most prominent example is the 1997 statement of principles by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC declaration called for a global leadership role for the United States and endorsed pre-emptive measures:

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership. Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

(..)

• We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

The statement was signed by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld, Peter Rodman, and Elliott Abrams, among others.

PNAC’s 2000 report, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century, authored by Thomas Donnelly (AEI), Donald Kagan, and Gary Schmitt, explicitly referred back to the original 1992 Planning Guidance as an inspiration. It described the DPG as a

a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests^[21][22]

Elements of the DPG are said to have reappeared in the so-called Bush Doctrine of 2002, which Senator Edward M. Kennedy described as "a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."^[23]

Reception in Russia

According to Sameed Basha in The National Interest (2023), by 2007 (see Vladimir Putin's speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference) the Kremlin’s political elite regarded U.S. foreign policy as the implementation of the 1992 plan to impose its will on the world and to weed out rivals wherever they may emerge. In Putin’s view, this was further confirmed by American actions in Ukraine, where the United States was seen as interfering in the country’s political affairs and paving the way for potential NATO and EU membership.^[24][25]

Quote

Probably no defense planning document since the end of World War II, with the possible exception of NSC-68, has received as much attention and discussion.^[26]

See also

• Bush Doctrine
• A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm