Posted by
halthouse1 on Monday, October 19, 2009 4:00:00 AM
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.