Skip to main content

It makes you wonder how we survived the Cold War. . . .

. . . . when Senator John McCain refuses to rule out pre-emptive war, ala the Bush Doctrine.

Quoth the Straight-talker:

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"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."


During the Cold War, you may recall, the US had a doctrine of no first strike, but massive retaliation, a doctrine that such different personalities as JFK, LBJ, Tricky Dick, Smilin' Jimmy, and the Gipper all accepted. This was during a time when we were actually faced by an opponent--remember the USSR?--with the nuclear capacity to kill at least 100,000,000 Americans in a single ICBM salvo.

And yet, we had a doctrine of no pre-emptive war. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. Granted--as in the Gulf of Tonkin--our pretexts were paper thin, but they still had to be there.

It was the Soviet Union that we could therefore denounce for invading and occupying Afghanistan.

Now I'm about to be very cold-blooded, at the risk of offending everyone.

Al Qaeda took its best shot on September 11, 2001, and killed nearly 4,000 Americans.

If a rogue state acquires nuclear weapons (let's use Iran or North Korea as examples) and actually fires one nuclear missile at us, or at our allies, what will happen? We will lose as many as 5-10,000,000 people and proceed to incinerate their entire country in retaliation.

If a terrorist group succeeds in smuggling in, or assembling on the ground, a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb, we may or may not know against whom we should retaliate.

If, even under the threat of losing half our population in half an hour we did not espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive war, what crazed moral bankruptcy has caused us to accept it?

Part of living in a republic is the acceptance of responsibility for your own actions, and the idea that all risks cannot be eliminated.

I do not want, nor will I accept, vote for, or support any Presidential candidate from any party who refuses to repudiate the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

John McCain, you are dead to me, now.

I will not be a party to another American Pearl Harbor.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Steve, you are right. Amen. I find it absurd that we cannot actually discuss these things in a rational manner without being accused (or fear being accused) of being crass, insensitive or unpatriotic.

Yes, there are bad things that can happen. That's life. That's democracy.

Thanks for saying it.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

The disturbing decline of the Delaware blogosphere: a very unfortunate Around the Horn (even if it's not Friday)

I've noticed a change in my own blog-checking habits over the past several weeks, and I don't know if it's just me or the reality of the last month of a divisive political campaign. I automatically used to check out Delawareliberal first and several times a day, because it was where I could find edgy, thought-provoking, and (dare I say it) funny banter going on. These days visit several other spots first, and my visits to DL are both shorter and less engaged. Why? Because the combination of invading neo-con commenters with the stridency of some of the major contributors has led to such pleasant exchanges as a post dedicated to labeling another blogger racist by donviti, whose own sense of provocative humor is generally so far out there that he makes John Belushi doing Samurai bartender on the SNL look positively pro-Asian. Or I can find Delawaredem and jason periodically spewing the idea that anybody who is not a liberal or progressive Democrat is somehow a non-American,...