Notice: U.S. WMD Retaliation Doctrine Has Changed
See-Dubya’s foreign policy roundup:
There’s a very important catch in the Weekly Standard by spy-dude Elbridge Colby, who notes a crucial change in our plans to respond to terrorist use of WMD’s. We’ve long held that states which assist in WMD terror would be held accountable. But February 8, we expanded our potential retribution schedule:
Instead of merely threatening that states that support terror attacks will be held responsible–already a staple of U.S. policy–Hadley goes further, threatening non-state actors who “enabl[e]” terrorists to strike with WMD. This careful choice of words would seem to expand our retaliatory standard to encompass complicity and perhaps even negligence. Not only states, but groups and individuals as well, should now be on notice that they will be held accountable for participation in, support for, complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. This strategy makes a great deal of sense; catastrophic terrorism is a threat that both justifies and requires a more exacting standard of behavior.
Individuals? Whoever could they mean?
But an ounce of prevention beats a megaton of retaliation. McCain was asked yesterday whether “he would reject ‘the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war,’” and his answer was a good one:
“If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation’s national security interests.”
It’s pretty much a softball for a Republican nominee, or at least it ought to be. I’d really like to hear this question pitched to Hillary and Obama as well. Do they believe the bad guys ought to get a free shot at us before we could do anything to them? Would they hear the words “Bush Doctrine” and reflexively repudiate a sound policy?
Finally, the New York Times has a surprisingly good and thorough look at the battle between two foreign policy camps over “John McCain’s soul”. It’s pitched as a battle between “neocons” and “pragmatists”, but those terms are fairly meaningless. The supposedly idealistic neocons are the ones laughing at the United Nations, and the “pragmatists” are all about going along with it. John Bolton isn’t usually considered a neocon, but using those anti-UN criteria he certainly qualifies. And Max Boot, whom I discussed here as being burned out on NATO, is listed as one of the neos as well. On the other side:
The worry about Mr. McCain is centered among a group of foreign policy realists who have long been close to him and who lost out to the hawks in the intense ideological battles of the first term of the current White House. The group includes former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush.
I wouldn’t lightly send you over to the New York Times, but this is a good road map to who’s who in McCainland and what they think.
UPDATE: One of the players on the neocon side mentioned in the NY Times article is Robert Kagan. Right now I’m reading through a new essay by Kagan on neoconservatism, what it means, and what it doesn’t–and the influence it had on the decision to fight in Iraq. It’s long and thinky so far, but not dull, and I’d rather hear what he says neoconservatism means than what the New York Times says it does. Good one to print out and read on the train home, or while you’re waiting for a flight.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- US Expands Scope for WMD Retaliation - SpartanTailgate.com - Michigan State Spartans Forums
- McCain’s Foreign Policy Advisors « The Political Inquirer
- Maggie's Notebook
- Neocon News » Thursday Bucket o’ News
- Michelle Malkin » Bush’s new faith-based North Korean nuclear proliferation policy
- Michelle Malkin » So where’s the coverage of Armitage?
- Michelle Malkin » Thinky Linky: the UnRealists
- Neoconservatives–Not New and Not Conservative–American Empire Interventionists « Pronk Palisades
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain, United Nations, War
TigerHawk
» Markets, Obama, goose, gander
Power Line
» An appeal not to appealJustOneMinute
» James (Not Earl) Jones As National Security AdviserBelmont Club
» 2025Patterico
» New York Times: Secretary of State ClintonRiehl World View
» Observations: Hank Paulson On A PlaneWeekly Standard
» A Run on Guns, Just in Time for the HolidaysStop The ACLU
» Hillary Clinton Will Say Yes to Secretary of State Job
Sadly, Bolton was run out of DC on a greased rail. His expertise, candor, and can-do are desperately needed in a McCain administration — if it comes to be. Besides, wouldn’t it be nice to see the leftists in the Senate lose every ounce of decorum if he were nominated for a top spot?
Is this Bizarro world?
NYT with a true story?
This can’t be true. If it was than I would expect the world to end, or Hell to freeze over, or all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light, since any of those would happen before the NYT actually reports news that’s Fit to print.
I’ll just pretent I didn’t see this Topic.
*pretend*
Hear, hear. And should keep our “friends” the lefties happy. Right?
Judging by the statements from some of the left-minded commentators on this site, the unfortunate answer is YES!
#2 MrVIBEMAN:
Don’t forget clocks going backwards, and huge rocks falling out of the sky.
Might we also assume neocons talk big and do nothing and pragmatists capitulate and do nothing. It seems once Bush formulated the Bush Doctrine he wanted no part of it. For these past eight years we have suffered an administration that can’t even build a Duncan Hunter caliber fence to secure our southern border and still does not know the source of radical fundamental Muslims (but then who is the enemy). Neocon or pragmatists, here it comes again in McSame and what might we expect the results to be.
So, if a State (one of ours I mean) is allowing/enabling terrorists to operate via sanctuary laws etc. the military could retaliate?
Naaaw, it couldn’t mean that… could it?
Sounds good, but I’m a bit skeptical; actions speak louder than words, & right now, the US is appeasing everyone in sight: Palestinian terrorists, North Korea, setting the groundwork for talks with Iran, essentially giving China a free ride on its attacks against Nepal. It will be great if this is carried out, but I’m apprehensive it’s nothing more than a sound bite.
“pragmatists” = appeasers and surrender monkeys
God help us. With Larry, Curly, and Moe running for President this country is in dire trouble.
No, I think this is referring to state sponsored terrorism. For example, states like Iran, and North Korea.
I’m all for it.
The NYT is clearly trying to scare off the moderate vote by saying that McCain has come under the influence of the folks who made the case for the war in Iraq. It may be a good look into who is in McCainland, but it’s really more of the same from the Times IMO.
Jim C
Moderate with McCain meaning joe sixpack that doesn’t follow politics, doesn’t really like the war, and is generally conservative on most things.
Jim C
“doesn’t really like the war” should have read “is tired of the war, but wants to win”.
I really should proof read before I post. It would save me having to make these back to back posts.
Jim C
Don’t forget Senator thune, a rising star in the GOP, who helped grease the rail for Bolton.
Bolton for Secretary of State
*watches dhimicrat heads explode*
I am encouraged to see we have a doctrine of counter attacking anyone that hits us with a WMD attack returning the favor with a couple of Kilotons of Nuclear Power, but I doubt if anyone in our Government has the stones to implement it. McCain really needs to quit surrounding him with pragmatist (panty-waste) advisors and find some realist that understand the nature of our enemies (foreign and domestic) and the threat they are to this country.
This amounts to a pre-declaration of WW-III. The only likely suspects to attack the USA using WMDs are Hezbollah, al queda, Hamas, and some other Islamic terror group. This policy says to these organizations and their state sponsors what we said to the Soviets when the mutually assured destruction policy was in place - you hit use with a nuke and we will respond with a nuke.
This is clearly a shot across the bow - and constitutes an ounce of prevention.
Use nuclear attack subs to plant one on Mecca. The game would stop there. Brutes only understand brute force. Plus these Jihadists are not loved by the general Muslim population—- look what happened in Iraq. I am sure the folks in Lebanon arent finished digging out from under the Hezbollah “victory” yet, while NOT singing the praises of their “benefactors”.
Level it. Before they strike. Because we have it on good authority (Ahmedinejad) that “Ya’ll were going to Nuke Israel.”
Condi’s strategy has been completely discredited. Bush should act before he leaves office. Let AmabO Hussein clean up the ashes. I mean it would qualify as “Change” wouldn’t it?
Re BitBoy #7
The day by day blow by blow picture might obscure the larger picture accomplishment of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq.
20,000 dead al Qaeda is nothing to scoff at. Iraq is producing more oil than it has than at any time in its history. Mookie al-Fritata’s power is leeching faster than fertilizer into the Mississippi. And the American military has significant presence on the Asian subcontinent for the first time since, when, forever?
Sometimes we civilians look at an admin on a media time scale wondering “what have you done for me today?” yet, the slow plodding pace of a civilian government’s foreign policy and coordination of a complex military may require we look at things on a different scale.
Bush will go down for what was accomplished in Iraq and how many of Beanie Lah-Dinsky’s guys he killed.
And in the process frustrated the political Left in this country from framing the debate in Vietnam style terms…..that strategy has been completely discredited.
It is the nature of conservative politics to take a bite out of a problem and then chew it forever before taking another bite.
I am curious to see Dubya’s parting gift to the Jihadists here in this country— a massive roundup of mosque roaches perhaps? massive freezing of bank accounts? and whatever happened to CAIR? will the Muslim Brotherhood finally be purged out of the CIA and the NSA?
lots to hold on about. the good guys are rolling.
zorro said:
I wish I had your “faith.” Unfortunately, if there is a Dem administration, they will likely bury their heads in the sand, pull out troops in Iraq, or pretend Al Qaeda doesn’t exist like Bill Clinton did. When they see the mushroom cloud I wonder what their reaction will be:
1) The nihilists will scream with joy.
2) The “pragmatists” or Dems in Denial will push their heads deeper into the scorched earth.
I hope I’ll be in a bunker if this circumstance should ever occur.
Neocons are big government, nation-building commies. Bolton is not a neocon. Bush and McCain are.
We have been hit with a WMD from Mexico. Between 15-30 million illegal aliens have managed to close down Hospitals, over flow our jails, and murder how many Americans?
Take Mexico’s oil for pay back, but that would mean the price of gas would go down. Does big oil want that? Will Bush slam Mexico for it’s WMD attack on us? I think not!