Palin, Preventive War versus Preemptive Strike

Charles Gibson asked Candidate Palin in the recent interview whether she agrees with the "Bush Doctrine". When she finally understood he was referring to foreign policy and the decision to attack another country, Sarah Palin answered:

"Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend."

Here is what Wikipedia writes about the difference between a preemptive strike and a preventive war:

Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.

Richard C. Holbrooke, is cited by the Washington Post identifying the 2002 National Security Strategy of the White House as the critical statement of a Bush doctrine. The strategy document itself articulates the principle as follows:

"The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

Comment: The charitable interpretation of Governor Palin's response is that she avoided answering the question Gibson intended her to answer, saying a preemptive strike was justified in some circumstances.

The likely interpretation is that she does not understand how significantly President Bush deviated from American historical and accepted international practice when he promulgated the 2002 National Security Policy. If in fact the McCain-Palin ticket is proposing to change the Bush policy -- rejecting preventive war and returning to a policy of allowing only a preemptive strike and only when intelligence demonstrates an attack in imminent -- that would be a major change from the Bush administration. Since the McCain-Palin ticket is seeking to convince the public that they will change the policies of the Bush administration, Gibson's question would have been a golden opportunity to give an important example of a policy change if indeed there is a change. JAD

Clarity of Objectives

The Washington Post article quotes Bush press secretary Dana Perino:

"the Bush doctrine is commonly used to describe key elements of the president's overall strategy for dealing with threats from terrorists." She laid out three elements:

"The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor terrorists. . . . We will confront grave threats before they fully materialize and will fight the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them at home. . . . We will counter the hateful ideology of the terrorist by promoting the hopeful alternative of human freedom."

The Washington Post also cites Peter D. Feaver, who worked on the Bush national security strategy as a staff member on the National Security Council, who "said he has counted as many as seven distinct Bush doctrines. They include the president's second-term 'freedom agenda'; the notion that states that harbor terrorists should be treated no differently than terrorists themselves; the willingness to use a "coalition of the willing" if the United Nations does not address threats; and the one Gibson was talking about -- the doctrine of preemptive war."

Comment: If you had any doubt that the military and diplomats of our government have been suffering from "mission creep" they should now be laid to rest. Different people inside and outside the administration, including the current Republican Vice Presidential candidate have different opinions as to what the Bush administration policy is.

One of the attributes of a good leader is letting his subordinates know precisely what the goals are. Experience may lead a good leader to adjust goals, but the adjustment should be explicit, the old goals formally renounced, and the new goals clearly articulated as now operative.

If the government functionaries do not know what they are to accomplish, it should not be surprising if they fail to do well! JAD