McCain Won't Rule Out Pre-Emptive War

WESTPORT, Conn. — Republican Sen. John McCain refused Wednesday to rule out a pre-emptive war against another country, although he said one would be very unlikely.

The likely Republican presidential nominee was asked Wednesday at a town-hall style meeting if he would reject "the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war," a reference to Bush's decision to invade Iraq without it having attacked the United States.

"I don't think you could make a blanket statement about pre-emptive war, because obviously, it depends on the threat that the United States of America faces," McCain told his audience at Bridgewater Associates Inc., a global investment firm.

"If someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests."

McCain said he would consult more closely and more carefully "not with every member of Congress, but certainly the leaders of Congress."

The Iraq war was in the spotlight this week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, gave Congress a status report on the war. McCain argues for keeping troops in Iraq to capitalize on security gains, despite a recent outbreak of violence. His Democratic rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton argue for withdrawing troops.

Comments

[ShimeyShimey]

The only thing that this administration has accomplished: Widespread alienation among the citizens. We've been alienated and abused by our leaders. And it will continue to happen, until someone or some people, decide that they're tired enough to take some drastic measures - like overthrow our government.

[dutchess2]

Pay attention here..................

Bombs rather than diplomacy....against another brown nation...bomb bomb bomb Iran. Its all he knows...war is all he knows.

The Muslims are furious with us as it is.... making another war will be just ducky..

Back home, in the real world, this war is costing us $12 BILLION a month of BORROWED money,
our military is depleted and worn.

Is McSame going to promote the draft to get enough bodies to be cannon fodder for his perpetual war?

Did any member of the press ask him if he was reinstituting the draft, or if he is out of the loop among the generals telling Bush and Congress our military needs recovery?

No?

[ShimeyShimey]

The game is rigged folks.. We're all going to vote for Obama, but I have a strong feeling that it won't matter because the table is tilted. It always has been. We have no rights in this country.

[ShimeyShimey]

McInsane.. I don't care what you think.

[jazzman]

McCain is running for Bush's third term so this isn't surprising. Anybody who is contemplating voting for McCain, doesn't like Bush, and is hoping for something different is simply insane.

[hip dibler]

AND? i don't get the point, your telling us what we already know. numbnuts already gave us a 'pre-emptive' war, a totally unnecessary and illegal one, and nobody seems to be doing anything about that so what the hell is the point?

[outnow]

If Bush was so smart why did he allow the attacks on 9-11 to go through when he had been warned. If we were under attack why would he just keep reading My Pet Goat. Do we want him to be the decider? What are McCain's qualifications exactly much less Bush's for have the judgment to make such decisions. One is an admitted alcoholic and the other is too old. The Viet Cong don't give you lessons on preventing attacks. What are McCain's claims? That thirty-five years ago he crashed his plane while bombing civilian targets in South East Asia and took a missile up his tail pipe? Then he was tortured. His brain is addled. I don't want him seeking revenge against his tormentors or any other demented delusional fantasy. Just give him a rocking chair and find someone else.

[dwmulenex]

careful, careful. The doctrine of preemptive attack has a foundation in international customary law (the way nations actually act) that goes back to Daniel Webster, and is usually called anticipatory self defense. It is employed when an imminent threat exists, no hope or time for avoiding attack is possible, and when the defensive attack is measured in proportion and duration to the imminent attack. There is no foundation in law or practice for a preemptive war, although the Bush contortionists, in trying to fashion the Bush doctrine, proposed such. Beyond legal considerations, a preemptive war is the stupidest form of circular logic, arguing that a war is necessary to avoid a war. The self defensive attack on the other hand, is intended to prevent and limit a wide scale war. It's characteristic of McCain's limited intellectual reach that he has not understood the difference.

[outnow]

There is a theoretical difference between preventative war and preemptive attacks. It would be safer to just wipe out the entire world except for those in the US and then start to determine which of us is a threat and act accordingly. The idea is circular. Cheney's one-percent doctrine is that, even if there is a one-percent chance of an attack, then shoot first and ask questions later. He shoot his friend in the face while employing that strategy. Maybe the drinking was part of the problem or just that he is a fossil. Nuclear disarmament makes more sense in the final analysis. We are less safe every day from the idea of using nuclear weapons. This includes depleted uranium and/or tactical nukes.

[VivaZapata]

when will ed schultz apologize for calling this war profiteer, a warmonger?

[frappe]

McCain won't rule out another "preemptive" war? Good. That's another reason to NOT vote for him.

Preemption, as an embraced foreign policy concept, has proven to be a bad idea. Using Iraq as an example, by preemptively invading Iraq based upon a perceived projection that Iraq would eventually use its oil wealth to hurt the United States, or subvert its interests, was wrong. The reason is simple, Saddam Hussein would have eventually been caught red-handed doing something stupid that the international community would strongly disapprove of. And once exposed, the U.S. would have had a much easier time recruiting valuable allies and assistance in defeating or thwarting Iraq's demonstrated malevolence.

But by resorting to "preemption" instead, we are viewed with fear and apprehension by other less powerful nations (the rest of the world). We are seen as a bully who resorts to fisticuffs to get its way. By so doing, we abrogate the higher moral ground by which to attract strong partnerships in our quest to defeat terrorism. We become more isolated and feared on the world stage at a time when trust and cooperation among world leaders is most needed.

So, McCain, you have given us another reason to oppose your presidency. And given your predisposition to anger, I am even more convinced the preemption is a very bad idea, indeed.

[VivaZapata]

why not? shoot first, find out you were wrong later, worked out real well in Iraq.

[markusmarkus]

McBooosh - another misguided lamebrained warmonger!

[markkraft]

McCain won't rule out preemptive war... and neither will Hillary.

She's supported preemptive war in the past, and has said one thing about pre-emptive war to the public ("I'm against it!") and another thing about it to groups like AIPAC ("I'm for it!"). I remember her also making a speech to a bunch of think-tank militarists a few years back where she suggested that those who weren't for preemptive war were naive.

Her goose is cooked... and it even flips itself to cook on both sides!

[EspritDeVoltaire]

You are absolutely correct. We are facing a double threat in McCain-Clinton.

There is first the obvious drawback of spreading death and misery while destroying American influence in the eyes of the world. However, secondly how these people would pay for this foolishness is beyond me. The country is in the worst economic state I have ever seen. This is in addition to the fact our military has already been reduce to a creaking ruin by the Bush escapades.

[outnow]

Preemptive war could be justified in a narrow set of circumstances. But just like the ticking bomb scenario, how often will that actually occur. When and if it does occur, such as missiles being launched from North Korea, taking the missiles out before launch would be done. Having said that, invading Iraq was not preemptive. It was preventative. There is a difference. Preventative wars are illegal because there is no showing of a clear and present threat. That's why Bush/Cheney lied. Aside from no connection to 9-11, there were no yellow cake supplies or mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq. What Iraq did have is oil.

[outnow]

One problem with the doctrine of preemptive war is that we don't know how good of intelligence is. Since troops will not be massing on our borders, and we would be able to detect the troops, I would have to assume that the attacks would come in some other form than troops. We do have two oceans and Mexico and Canada surrounding us. Hawaii and Alaska are likewise not vulnerable to troops, maybe planes from an aircraft carrier. So we are looking at missiles and other forms of domestic attacks such as biological, chemical, or dirty nuclear launched from within the country from cells. Then there are state and non-state actors. Presumably, a preemptive strike would work for a missile lift-off from say, North Korea, where the missiles could be taken at at the silos at launch.

In all other scenarios, the preemptive doctrine doesn't work, except to crudely retaliate against any and all states and non-state actors who are on the list of prospective hostile countries and terrorists. The preemptive attacks could have a salutary effect of just wiping out any and all enemies or any sort at any time - kind of a blunderbuss shooting around like Cheney dressed as Elmer Fudd - just shooting a shotgun in all directions hoping to hit "dem wabbits."

With bad intelligence and targets that are unknown or unknowable, the preemptive strikes do not make much sense unless it would be to take out potential WMD or nuclear capacity. .

[outnow]

I forgot submarines and suitcase nukes. Gramps has it all figured out though, I'm sure - as if over in the Hanoi Hilton, they gave him submarine lessons or al Qaeda tips as part of his re-education. McGramps has no clue and neither does Cheney or they would have known that Saddam Huseein was not an al Qaeda supporter. The doctrine allows politicians to designate enemies with resources - especially oil for multinational corporations like Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Halliburton and extract the oil at taxpayer expense and then to sell it to you at an inflated costs. Internalize profits and externalize costs. There is no"risk" to these corporations. They move in for the financial kill.

[oracle99]

The intelligence that they give us has been made up to suit their purpose.

[OverIt]

I posted the following in another post recently:

" I was watching the movie "300" last night and realized that a lot of McCain's talking points seem to have come right out of the scripted dialogue of Sparta's King Leonides. Unfortunately for McCain, we do not live nor do we want to live in a militarist society where every aspect of life revolves around prepping for war and going to war. Judging by McCain's chosen biographical highlights last week, it is apparent that he has a different world view."

Sometimes I wonder if McCain is trying to rewrite the ending of his battles in Vietnam.

Based on the testimony this week and the way this McCain keeps bringing up Iran and Al Qaeda --- harmless mistake my a$$ --- I would not be surprised if they stirred something up for an October surprise. These people either don't have a conscience or think the lives of American troops are expendable. Ed Schultz and Rockefeller were SPOT ON!!!

[MajorKong]

I'm not worried about him ruling it out. I'm worried about him making it the centerpiece of his administration.

"When people speak to you about a preventative war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war." - Dwight Eisenhower