>>Justification for war is in the hearts and heads of fools.
>
>Apparently killing is the best way to keep the peace. Bush has said this several times: To achieve peace we must fight. I've been told that this is like screwing for viriginity.
>
>Here's something you'll like, the National Security Strategy of the United States.
>The theme of the NSS is that the U.S. wants only one thing: freedom for everyone. But the U.S. government alone has the right to decide what counts as freedom.
>To preserve that freedom, the NSS promises that no nation will be given any chance of “surpassing, or equaling, the [military] power of the United States.”
>http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0926-01.htm
>
>Let freedom ring!

The statement:To preserve that freedom, the NSS promises that no nation will be given any chance of “surpassing, or equaling, the [military] power of the United States is interesting, to say the least.
Firstly, many countries of the world hold the same practise (of parity or better, militarily) as regards their dangerous (in their own eyes) neighbours, though in the name of self-preservation and not in the name of "freedom".
In the days of the cold war both the USSR and the US practised the same, and their method to ensure was to build yet more and more. To me that is preferable over the alternative - that the 'offending' country (the one building up arms to match/exceed US capabilities) is annihilated before they can achieve parity. The statement as written above seems to say that the latter is now as probable as the former, and that is not good.
Secondly, I guess that relations with China are now to be reevaluated, since they have to be awfully close to parity already and can get there awfully quickly if they set their mind to it.

"Freedom for everyone is a nice idea too but for the fact that freedom has different definitions around the globe and, in fact, freedoms for US citizens are deteriorating fast since the Sep. 11, 2001 ATTACKS. Here in Canada we've lost some too, primarily to placate our southern neighbours, but nothing like you have down there. But I'm betting that pressures from the US will get us closer and closer to your position before long (sadly).
When statements like these are issued I always think of the differences in 'policy' between Cuba and China. Cubans are are 'freer' than Chinese (excluding Hong Kong) but the Cuban market is so paltry compared to the Chinese market. Another HUGE difference is that China is tailor-made for economic exploitation while the Cubans are a bit more savvy (having been there already).

Finally, I'm afraid that "freedom" and "capitalism" go hand-in-hand in a policy statement like this. That's fine when a country's population already knows about the concept of "ownership" (of land, buildings, companies, etc.). Believe it or not there are many countries in the world where this concept is totally unknown! I suspect it is so even in countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Jordan as much as it is in most African countries and lots of Asian countries. Capitalism depends on title/ownership and for the desire for these things by the common folk. It's hard to get someone to 'want' what they don't understand in the first place.

Is the policy you quoted subject to debate/approval by Congress, or is it a fait-accompli?