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

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?