I’m still trying to parse Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s comment from earlier today about using nuclear weapons against terrorists:
“I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” Obama said, with a pause, “involving civilians.” Then he quickly added, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”
That’s really not much of a qualification. Terrorists are civilians by definition, aren’t they? Is there a distinction between “not on the table” and “off the table”? My understanding of the expression is that it means “not negotiable” not merely “not currently being negotiated”. Perhaps someone should set me straight on this.
Taken at face value it looks to me as though either Sen. Obama doesn’t understand deterrence, he doesn’t believe that terrorists are deterrable, or that he doesn’t believe in deterrence.
I’d certainly be interested in what he might be proposing as a substitute. For example, I’ve heard people talking about unilateral nuclear disarmament recently. Is that an idea whose time has come?
Or does Sen. Obama’s statement merely fit the definition of “gaffe” i.e. accidently saying what one really believes?
Update
Apparently, Sen. Hillary Clinton reacted somewhat as I did to Sen. Obama’s remarks:
“Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons,” Clinton said. “Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”
I think, more likely, that Obama is just showing that he has no experience on the foreign stage, and frankly hasn’t given much thought to the realities of international relations. Obama could be a good candidate in 2016; in 2008, he is not going to get as far as some think, despite the nice media image. He is, after all, young, handsome, articulate and has no record to speak of — or to speak ill of. As a result, he’s tabula rasa, and everyone is writing their hopes onto Obama. Reality, though, is that either Giuliani or Thompson or McCain would mop the floor with Obama on foreign policy. The Democrats’ best hope, despite her high negatives, would be to nominate Clinton. I just don’t think Clinton can win. But I know from years of watching politics as a hobby that Obama cannot win the general election, barring some freak sequence of events.
Obama knows at least as much as George W. Bush knew in 2000. Arguably as much as he knows today. That’s not a defense of Obama, I’m just pointing out that after 7 years of concentrated imbecility the GOP will have trouble pointing a finger at anyone.
Giuliani has foreign policy experience? What’s your evidence? And Thompson? Thompson’s an indifferent Senator, a mediocre actor, and an evidently unsuccessful lobbyist. What are his FP creds? McCain, yeah, he has credibility.
Well, Clinton doesn’t have much foreign policy experience either beyond what she might have been exposed to as First Lady and her short stint in Congress.
There is no commonly accepted definition for terrorists, but I think few would consider them “civilians” which most people equate with “noncombatants.” I think Obama was talking about using nuclear weapons in general anyway, not against terrorists.
As we saw with Bush, a President inexperienced and ignorant of the foreign arena will depend heavily on advisers for policy decisions. I will find it difficult to vote for one so inexperienced again unless I have some idea of who is likely to fill his/her key adviser and cabinet positions.
When you add all of the comments above up, it explains pretty well why I think the most highly of Richardson among those in the Democratic field.
“Terrorists are civilians by definition, aren’t they?”
Under international law, it would depend on the context.
If a recognizable state of armed conflict exists, including civil wars, then the terrorists are bona fide armed combatants and how they are to be treated depends upon both their actions and to which protocol of the Geneva Conventions the sovereign power is a signatory. The Europeans are more restricted here than are we ( so are the Russians, technically speaking, but they have always ignored their Geneva obligations as a matter of course).
If there is no state of armed conflict and some guy named Bob builds a bomb in his garage to take out the dreaded ZOG or an abortion clinic or an ROTC building then he is a civilian who is tried under applicable national criminal laws.