Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Please Support CounterPunch’s Annual Fund Drive
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We only ask you once a year, but when we ask we mean it. So, please, help as much as you can. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. All contributions are tax-deductible.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush’s New Nuke Policy

“With 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 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 (ala The X-Files): “Trust, no one.” Late in the week, apparently an officer(s) 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 (i.e. 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 scenario 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 (probably not) that they even have nuclear weapons. It is also a confusing signal for China after receiving ‘favorite 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 vowed not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states. The strategic threats the Pentagon identifies say simply ‘attacks,’ not of what origin.

As with 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 Saddam Hussein).

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. For the first time, there may be fear of the unthinkable–again (Hiroshima). Let’s hope that doesn’t occur.

Tommy Ates lives in Austin, Texas. He has for The Houston Chronicle, Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, The Wichita Eagle, The Macon Telegraph, and Global Black News.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
October 17, 2018
John Steppling
Before the Law
James McEnteer
Larry Summers Trips Out
Frank Stricker
Wages Rising? 
Muhammad Othman
What You Can Do About the Saudi Atrocities in Yemen
Binoy Kampmark
Agents of Chaos: Trump, the Federal Reserve and Andrew Jackson
Karen J. Greenberg
Justice Derailed: From Gitmo to Kavanaugh
John Feffer
Why is the Radical Right Still Winning?
Dan Corjescu
Green Tsunami in Bavaria?
Rohullah Naderi
Why Afghan Girls Are Out of School?
George Ochenski
You Have to Give Respect to Get Any, Mr. Trump
Cesar Chelala
Is China Winning the War for Africa?
Mel Gurtov
Getting Away with Murder
W. T. Whitney
Colombian Lawyer Diego Martinez Needs Solidarity Now
Dean Baker
Nothing to Brag About: Scott Walker’s Economic Record in Wisconsin:
October 16, 2018
Gregory Elich
Diplomatic Deadlock: Can U.S.-North Korea Diplomacy Survive Maximum Pressure?
Rob Seimetz
Talking About Death While In Decadence
Kent Paterson
Fifty Years of Mexican October
Robert Fantina
Trump, Iran and Sanctions
Greg Macdougall
Indigenous Suicide in Canada
Kenneth Surin
On Reading the Diaries of Tony Benn, Britain’s Greatest Labour Politician
Andrew Bacevich
Unsolicited Advice for an Undeclared Presidential Candidate: a Letter to Elizabeth Warren
Thomas Knapp
Facebook Meddles in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Muhammad Othman
Khashoggi and Demetracopoulos
Gerry Brown
Lies, Damn Lies & Statistics: How the US Weaponizes Them to Accuse  China of Debt Trap Diplomacy
Christian Ingo Lenz Dunker – Peter Lehman
The Brazilian Presidential Elections and “The Rules of The Game”
Robert Fisk
What a Forgotten Shipwreck in the Irish Sea Can Tell Us About Brexit
Martin Billheimer
Here Cochise Everywhere
David Swanson
Humanitarian Bombs
Dean Baker
The Federal Reserve is Not a Church
October 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Climate Crisis is Upon Us
Conn Hallinan
Syria’s Chessboard
Patrick Cockburn
The Saudi Atrocities in Yemen are a Worse Story Than the Disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi
Sheldon Richman
Trump’s Middle East Delusions Persist
Justin T. McPhee
Uberrima Fides? Witness K, East Timor and the Economy of Espionage
Tom Gill
Spain’s Left Turn?
Jeff Cohen
Few Democrats Offer Alternatives to War-Weary Voters
Dean Baker
Corporate Debt Scares
Gary Leupp
The Khashoggi Affair and and the Anti-Iran Axis
Russell Mokhiber
Sarah Chayes Calls on West Virginians to Write In No More Manchins
Clark T. Scott
Acclimated Behaviorisms
Kary Love
Evolution of Religion
Colin Todhunter
From GM Potatoes to Glyphosate: Regulatory Delinquency and Toxic Agriculture
Binoy Kampmark
Evacuating Nauru: Médecins Sans Frontières and Australia’s Refugee Dilemma
Marvin Kitman
The Kitman Plan for Peace in the Middle East: Two Proposals
Weekend Edition
October 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Becky Grant
My History with Alexander Cockburn and The Financial Future of CounterPunch
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail