Policy Will Worry Both Friends and Enemies
March 12, 2002
By Tommy Ates
friends like these, who needs enemies?"
That is probably one of the many thoughts going through
the minds of some the leaders of countries mentioned as nuclear
threats (or targets) as well as some of the American people,
who didn't realize that 'pushing the button' could occur even
if nuclear weapons were not being used.
The leaked Pentagon report, called The Nuclear Posture Review
(regarding American nuclear weapon contingencies), offers
a frightening, possible 'end-game' solution for the war on
terror from rogue nation states. According to the policy review,
the United States has identified those nations as Iraq, Iran,
Libya, North Korea, and Syria. However, in that same leaked
report, there are countries among which we have normalized
relations (Russia and China). The question then is, who are
our friends and who are our enemies? In the Bush administration,
there seems an unyielding motto: "Trust no-one."
Late in the week, apparently an officer (or officers) at
the Pentagon leaked the mostly unclassified report to the
press by giving a partial copy to The Los Angeles Times and
a full one to The New York Times (both left of center news
institutions), but as the New York Times, with the full document,
noted, key portions were kept secret. Unfortunately for President
Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the world now
knows of our nuclear strategic policy. And what is the significance
of this leak? It is the apparent willingness of President
Bush to steer the United States away from a Clinton-derived,
coalition-driven, foreign policy and to an isolationist posture
(like the Cold War), acting only in response to threats that
may jeopardize our strategic self-interests.
In the military document, the Pentagon goes on to point out
the three scenarios in which nuclear weapons may be used:
an Iraqi attack on Israel, a North Korean attack on South
Korea, and a Chinese attack on Taiwan. In the case of Iraq
and North Korea, it has not been proven that they even have
nuclear weapons. It is also a confusing signal for China after
receiving 'favored nation' trading status (despite continued
human rights violations).
On its face, such a plan appears to go against the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty in which the United States would not
use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. The
strategic threats the Pentagon identifies say simply 'attacks,'
not of what origin. Like breaking the ABM treaty with Russia,
President Bush appears to have no qualms of re-establishing
American imperialist objectives on contracts or agreements
that do not suit his administration's goals. The only problem
is what will the global, political atmosphere be when the
President leaves office?
In the eyes of the mainstream news media, the answer appears
to be any nation that can solve the nation's insecurity about
terrorism in place of not being able to capture Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda. With this secret plan revealed, we risk
the developing world and our 'former enemies' wondering whether
our intentions are genuine or simply strategic in the war
on terror (especially since the focus has moved on to a non-terrorist
There are three reasons why the Bush administration should
not implement this plan: 1) its announcement will undercut
Vice President Cheney's diplomatic mission to the Middle East,
in preparation of a possible military conflict with Iraq over
the United Nations weapons inspections; 2) the plan will bring
distrust among our European allies of American foreign objectives,
precisely when the E.U. is formulating their own military
strategy; 3) the document will raise doubts within Russia
and China as to whether the U.S. has acted in good faith with
current nuclear nonproliferation agreements.
In short, the Nuclear Posture Review will lead to an unraveling
of the notion of American goodwill in foreign policy, hampering
our efforts to forge alliances with the Arab states in the
war on terror, and asking Russia, China and (most importantly)
the emerging European Union, to reevaluate strategic military
posture in regards in the U.S.
If the leaking of this Pentagon brief was to justify the
President's "axis of evil" gaffe, the intention has backfired.
Whoever leaked this report wanted the American people to
know that our strategic nuclear interests have changed, not
only do we distrust our new 'friends,' but we are willing
to annihilate our perceived enemies if it suits our best interests.
Once again, we may be facing fear of the unthinkable. Let's
hope that doesn't occur.
Tommy Ates loves the left because the left is always right!
He wants to help the underdog become the Top Dog.