The Preemptive Strike Doctrine

Clear and Present Danger

If an individual, or the United States as a sovereign nation is aware of a building danger to security or safety, is the optimal plan to wait until it is a clear and present danger before dealing with it? Common sense would seem to dictate that the line separating danger and imminent danger is extremely fine, and that waiting is in no way consistent with the premise of either personal or national security.

As an individual you would work the problem through the system to try and contain it. As a nation facing entities and regimes that seek to inflict as much damage and destruction as possible on innocent men, women and children, the solution is more complex. And yes, this solution may in fact require the use of military force to take that threat out.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine was put in place by the Bush administration in 2002 with the expressed purpose of giving the United States the right to protect, not only our citizens, but our allies around the world from the ever increasing threats that exist. It stated that the United States had the right to deal with a building threat to security in addition to a threat that presented a "clear and present danger" Unfortunately for all involved, because it was implemented by President Bush, it is a pariah that President Obama wants to eradicate.

Obviously, Iran is the textbook case for the fine line that we have to walk. There is a quickly building danger posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. Our "allies" in the fight to end or contain this threat, Russia and China, are not true allies. In fact, China and Russia have their own agendas, which will prevent them from taking any real action against this regime. China has a need for the Iranian oil to fuel its 6% plus economic growth. Russia has economic ties to Iran and is in fact helping them in building its’ nuclear infrastructure and missile defense system. This very missile defense system will make dealing with the nukes problem, when it does become a clear and present danger, that much more difficult to deal with. Is waiting for this point in the best interest of United States national security?

The Obama Doctrine

This apparent method of the Obama administration for dealing with threats to the United States and our friends around the world has become clear. Ominously clear. It is the idea of diplomacy first and second, with the implementation of sanctions and deal making together with our supposed allies to gain the help needed to deal with the problem third. The fallacy of this plan?

You cannot enter into substantive and valid negotiations with when the other party to those negotiations is a rogue regime with the stated goal of destroying our allies and the U.S. You cannot implement economic sanctions against a government who does not have the vested interests of its' own population at heart. Additionally, when your partners in imposing the sanctions will most likely not abide by them, this method of containing the threat will fail. China and Russia have clearly stated that they do not favor sanctions at this time. 

At the same time, through the Obama Doctrine premise of appeasement, the United States has portrayed itself as the polar opposite of Bush. Weak and willing to give up most anything to achieve our goals in ways that will make them unachievable. We gave up missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia to appease the Russians with the understanding that they would back sanctions, and they did not.

Our allies in this fight against global threats, as well as Iran and North Korea, do not respect weakness, but they will take full advantage of it. For the Russians under acting leader Putin, they will get whatever they can from the United States, and in return most likely never come through on their side of the bargain. For Iran, they will play the game and dance the dance, stringing us along while continuing on the way to a nuclear capability.

What the Obama Doctrine does not seem to account for is that rhetoric, flowery speech and empty threats do not scare anyone. Anyone, except for those around the world who see it for what it is: “Clear and present danger" to the United States itself. In the end, those nations who live under a daily threat to security will be forced to take matters into their own hands, act unilaterally, and pay a price to ensure national security.

What the Obama Doctrine needs to account for is that in the world today, the emphasis has to be on a pragmatic approach to events, and not an approach designed to simply be "not George Bush." While the far left may endorse that, the rest of us will pay the price. 

Michael Haltman writes The Political Commentator, with articles having been picked up by publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times and Houston Chronicle. He focuses much of his writing on national security,  the war on terror, the presidency and politics as usual. Living in New York, aware that Americans have short memories and our enemy’s great patience, he hopes that his articles will help keep us vigilant and aware. Michael welcomes any questions or comments at exetertraining@aol.com.

Monday, May 4, 2009

The Political and Financial Markets Commentator

Monday, May 4, 2009

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Does President Obama Know About the Goings On In Pakistan (Or Any Foreign Policy Crisis)?

No Mention During His Daily Television Show

Question: Does President Obama understand that foreign policy is part of his job description? This means more than bowing to the Saudi King, shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and basically giving up the responsibility for the protection of our citizens here and around the world to a decision by committee of world leaders and the United Nations?

While holding a press conference on Monday to discuss the nickels and dimes that he is tasking his departments with shaving off of their budgets, no mention was made of the extremely disturbing news coming out of Pakistan.

To give President Obama some perspective, because according to his minions he has been in office such a short time he shouldn't be expected to be held responsible for anything that goes on there (everything is apparently a result of the failures of the last 8 years), Pakistan is a partner in the war on terror, possesses nukes and is apparently slowly being taken over by the Taliban. Now if we look at the map below, we find that Pakistan, situated between it's arch enemy India and Afghanistan (and again possessing nuclear weapons) is in a strategically very important and dangerous location.



To all of the Obama apologists out there who seem to think that it is way to early in his administration to expect much out of him (I think they believe that would be somewhere in his 4th year if ever), this situation with the Taliban has the potential to morf out of control and affect all of us in some very disturbing ways.

Now while cutting $100 MM over a 5 year period from a few different agencies is all well and good, what Mr. President, is the plan for this spreading problem? Perhaps President Obama doesn't view the spread of Islamic fundamentalist power as a problem. I suppose that could be true as well.

In the event that the Congress and the President have not been briefed by Secretary of State Clinton (who also may possibly not be aware of the situation with more important items on her plate like keeping an eye on her husband), here is a summary:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, April 19 -- A potentially troubling era dawned Sunday in Pakistan's Swat Valley, where a top Islamist militant leader, emboldened by a peace agreement with the federal government, laid out an ambitious plan to bring a "complete Islamic system" to the surrounding northwest region and the entire country.

Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.

"The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin," Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan's modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all "un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished," and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas...(Washington Post)

I say it often, but apparently it has to be said over and over and over. President Obama, there is a foreign policy component to you job. Perhaps as important as the economy and health care, because if a rogue nation or terrorist group somehow releases a nuclear device, the economy becomes a little less important.

If you haven't given your answer to the question in the sidebar concerning who you voted for in this past presidential election, and if you would vote the same way if the election were to be held today, please do so! Sphere: Related Content

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>

From <a href="http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com">The Political and Financial Markets Commentator</a>. Visit and sign-up for your free email or feed delivery.

<strong>What Would The United States Do If A Missile Out Of North Korea Was Headed Towards Hawaii? Let's Ask Secretary Of Defense Gates:</strong>
<strong></strong>
<span style="font-size:85%;">"Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting the host of the show to ask, "And there's nothing we can do about it?"</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
"No," Gates answered, according to an account of the interview on foxnews.com. "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
Last week, Navy Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said in an interview with ABC News that the U.S. military was "fully prepared" to shoot down the missile, if ordered to do so. But Gates said Sunday such a response was unlikely.</span>
<span style="font-size:85%;">
<strong>"I think if we had an aberrant missile, one that was headed for Hawaii, that looked like it was headed for Hawaii or something like that, we might consider it," Gates said. "But I don't think we have any plans to do anything like that at this point."</strong></span> (<a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/not-prepared-stop-north-korea/story.aspx?guid=%7B2F21B81C%2DF016%2D4240%2D9CC2%2DEE7833BADA71%7D">MarketWatch</a>)

<a title="Blue Hawaii by janruss, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/janinerussell/2121859675/"><img height="328" alt="Blue Hawaii" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2085/2121859675_0213b1e9a2.jpg" width="500" /></a>

Hmmmm. Has Hawaii heard about this? I would hope if a missile was headed for New York, the Pentagon would do more than just think about shooting it down. Is Hawaii expendable, or does this exchange indicate the state of our foreign policy?

Are we operating under benign neglect? Through policy by omission as opposed to commission?

Where, I ask again, is <strong>Secretary of State Clinton</strong> through all of this. Is she waiting at the United Nations to be ready to put in our complaint to the Security Council when North Korea test fires this missile? Is she personally observing the dismantling of our missile defense in Eastern Europe so that we can then rely on the Russians to take care of the nuclear threat in Iran?

It seems as if our foreign policy is going to be to react when God forbid something happens. I personally don't think that is a foreign policy. It is the old hope and pray. <strong>The Obama administration seems to want to go to the polar opposite point of the Bush administration in terms of foreign policy.</strong> They don't even want to say anything that may appear to be combative for fear of sounding less than diplomatic.

That stance has gotten us to the point of an imminent missile test firing and the planned trial of two journalists accused violating the North Korean border. As I have said the Obama administration is being tested, and so far the grade is not an A.

Maybe we can hurry up and get a quick U.N. Resolution.

<p><strong></strong></p>
<p></p>