American taxpayers

To combat this battle, the NSS06 recognized the need to empower the very people the terrorists most want to exploit: the faithful followers of Islam. The NSS06 also recognizes the need to work with allies or with others to completely diffuse conflicts, regional or otherwise. As noted by the NSS06 statement, regional conflicts can arise from a wide variety of causes, including poor governance, external aggression, competing claims, internal revolt, tribal rivalries, and ethnic or religious hatreds.

If left unaddressed, however, these different causes lead to the same ends: failed states, humanitarian disasters, and ungoverned areas that can become safe havens for terrorists. The Bush administration’s strategy for addressing regional conflicts includes three levels of engagement: conflict prevention and resolution; conflict intervention; and post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction. However, the most striking part of the NSS06 statement is the admission of the Bush administration that effective cooperation on these efforts is dependent on capable partners.

To this end, NSS06 states that Congress has enacted new authorities that will permit the United States to train and equip our foreign partners in a more timely and effective manner. It added that the President will continue working with Congress and will continue to pursue foreign assistance reforms that allow the President to draw on the skills of agencies across the United States Government. The NSS06 was also clear in defining its allies.

According to the NSS06 document, America’s closest alliances and friendships are with countries with whom we share common values and principles. The more countries demonstrate that they treat their own citizens with respect and are committed to democratic principles, the closer and stronger their relationship with America is likely to be. NSS06 vows that the United States will lead and calls on other nations to join us in a common international effort.

All free nations have a responsibility to stand together for freedom because all free nations share an interest in freedom’s advance. In looking at these points, one can logically draw the conclusion that one of the positive implications of the salomon v salomon of the United States is the recognition of the Bush Administration that it cannot wage war against a powerful ideology all by itself. The NSS06 falls short of admitting that the War on Terror is not simply a war to be won by the United States against its enemies.

It recognizes the need for international cooperation to fully combat the battle that is terrorism. I deem this a positive implication simply because the financial burden of waging such a massive and dragging war will no longer be shouldered by American taxpayers but by the whole international community. Another positive implication of the new NSS06 is that the United States is actually leaning more towards voluntary cooperation rather than resorting to binding treatises.

I say that this is a positive move because no nation should use power and influence to win the support of another nation. In this case, the United States has most often been perceived as a bully in international law and that it always muscles itself in the negotiating table to get what it wants. Now that the NSS06 is clear on the voluntary cooperation of other nations, the United States can finally break free from this image. One other positive effect of this stance is seeing the real commitment of the allies to the cause being pursued by the United States.