FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush’s New Nuke Policy

by Tommy Ates

“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:
February 22, 2018
Mark Schuller
Haiti’s Latest Indignity at the Hands of Dogooders, Oxfam’s Sex Scandal
Jeffrey Sommers
Bond Villain in the World Economy: Latvia’s Offshore Banking Sector
Mark Schuller
Haiti’s Latest Indignity at the Hands of Dogooders, Oxfam’s Sex Scandal
T.J. Coles
How the US Bullies North Korea, 1945-Present
Ipek S. Burnett
Rethinking Freedom in the Era of Mass Shootings
Manuel E. Yepe
Fire and Fury: More Than a Publishing Hit
Patrick Bobilin
Caught in a Trap: Being a Latino Democrat is Being in an Abusive Relationship
Laurel Krause
From Kent State to Parkland High: Will America Ever Learn?
Terry Simons
Congress and the AR-15: One NRA Stooge Too Many
George Wuerthner
Border Wall Delusions
Manuel García, Jr.
The Anthropocene’s Birthday, or the Birth-Year of Human-Accelerated Climate Change
Thomas Knapp
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Russiagate
February 21, 2018
Cecil Bothwell
Billy Graham and the Gospel of Fear
Ajamu Baraka
Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire
Edward Hunt
Treating North Korea Rough
Binoy Kampmark
Meddling for Empire: the CIA Comes Clean
Ron Jacobs
Stamping Out Hunger
Ammar Kourany – Martha Myers
So, You Think You Are My Partner? International NGOs and National NGOs, Costs of Asymmetrical Relationships
Michael Welton
1980s: From Star Wars to the End of the Cold War
Judith Deutsch
Finkelstein on Gaza: Who or What Has a Right to Exist? 
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
War Preparations on Venezuela as Election Nears
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Military Realities
Steve Early
Refinery Safety Campaign Frays Blue-Green Alliance
Ali Mohsin
Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump
Julian Vigo
UK Mass Digital Surveillance Regime Ruled Illegal
Peter Crowley
Revisiting ‘Make America Great Again’
Andrew Stewart
Black Panther: Afrofuturism Gets a Superb Film, Marvel Grows Up and I Don’t Know How to Review It
CounterPunch News Service
A Call to Celebrate 2018 as the Year of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois by the Saturday Free School
February 20, 2018
Nick Pemberton
The Gun Violence the Media Shows Us and the State Violence They Don’t
John Eskow
Sympathy for the Drivel: On the Vocabulary of President Nitwit
John Steppling
Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk Into a Bar…
John W. Whitehead
America’s Cult of Violence Turns Deadly
Ishmael Reed
Charles F. Harris: He Popularized Black History
Will Podmore
Paying the Price: the TUC and Brexit
George Burchett
Plumpes Denken: Crude thinking
Binoy Kampmark
The Caring Profession: Peacekeeping, Blue Helmets and Sexual Abuse
Lawrence Wittner
The Trump Administration’s War on Workers
David Swanson
The Question of Sanctions: South Africa and Palestine
Walter Clemens
Murderers in High Places
Dean Baker
How Does the Washington Post Know that Trump’s Plan Really “Aims” to Pump $1.5 Trillion Into Infrastructure Projects?
February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Mueller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail