About the time I graduated from high school, I met a very likable girl. A friend of mine had a crush on her but I did not know her that well. Most everyone liked her. She was interested in others and they appreciated that. She rarely talked about herself, but could find something to say to most anyone. I admired that and believed that she could be a negotiator and bring people together who would not come together on their own. Later, when I was in Blacksburg, my friend still had a crush on her, and I got to see first hand what she was really like. A couple of friends of hers had a relatively small disagreement and she was on both sides. She would not say anything that she thought would be less than positive, nor would she recuse herself. It seemed that she would rather be liked than helpful. She was not able to bring them together, even thought they did not seem that far apart. In the end, neither of her friends had any respect for her and she lost them both. I lost my respect for her as well, because she had no principle of her own, she simply told people they were right because she like being agreeable. Conversation with her was shallow and unfulfilling. Although this was not a deal breaker for my friend, I quickly lost interest. Until recently, I had not given her a second thought. I am surprised that I remember her at all.
But it occurred to me that I have noticed a series of events recently which made me remember her. I take some consolation for the friendships that ended over the years, in that each person who is no longer a friend, at least learned to recognize those traits they would not be able to tolerate in their next relationship, just as she served this purpose for me. We learn that the Jeep CJ-5 with the V-8, big tires and rag top is a lot more trouble than it is worth. We learn over the years to respect substance and view rosy promises with suspicion. We learn this not because we have been wronged, but because we better defined the difference between what we think will make us happy, and what does so over the long run.
President Obama recently promised the world that America will not use nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks against us. My suspicion was aroused immediately and the really important points about this assertion are in the stated, and implied, and effective exceptions to this promise.
First, you may remember me saying that limits placed on the town council by the town council are meaningless. If the council has the authority to place a limit on itself, it has the authority to release that limit. For the President to promise not to use nukes in response to an attack on America is at least arrogant, at most naive. For such a promise to have any meaning, one would have to assume that an attack on America would be so benign that our sovereignty would not be at risk. Could anyone really believe that they could attack us with the intent of occupying this country and ANY defense would be off the table? So this promise can only have meaning to those people who would attack us, in the belief they could prevail, but were deterred from doing so for fear of nuclear retaliation, but would now reconsider. We would gain no benefit in so limiting ourselves much less stating so publicly. Would we not prefer that they postpone their attack for such a fear?
So, if this promise is not for the benefit of our reluctant but nearly emboldened enemy, then who? The theories abound as there seems to be no immediate explanation. One such theory is that this is for Iran’s benefit. The theory is that Iran would not want to be on the naughty list of countries who are not protected against US nuclear attack since they have not agreed to non-proliferation. Come over to the light side of the force and we will agree to settle our differences with conventional weapons? Again, I am skeptical. Does anyone believe that this will result in an Iran who prefers a cozy relationship with the Great Satan over their stated religious imperative of destroying it?
Again, our enemies will not be impressed. Those we hope to pressure do not view this as a carrot and it certainly cannot be interpreted as a stick. Our allies, who we are sworn to protect, certainly cannot say that the US should not use ANY method to protect them from annihilation from non-nuclear attack when conventional weapons cannot prevail. Who is left? Who is he talking to? Well, this is where the cynic in me comes out.
This leaves our reluctant allies. This leaves those who tolerate us as long as there is a mutually agreeable arrangement. Greece, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, in short, mostly middle eastern countries who do not like us being in their back yard much less the threat of nuclear attacks in their part of the world. We want to tell them that we will not attack anyone in their back yard since we can handle any skirmish in that part of the world without having to flex our muscles that hard.
The bottom line is this: we will not stop at any limit to defend ourselves. No country would expect any different and few would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available, to defend themselves, even if they would wait until it was the last resort. Indeed, the countries that spend most of their money on social programs and also have nuclear weapons, have little options prior to nuclear escalation if the US military does not fill in the gap. The President cannot take nukes off the table because he can just as easily put them back on, without prior notice, and potential aggressors know that. The explanation that stands out to me, mostly because I recognize it from my past, is that the President wants to be liked. The only explanation that makes sense to me, is that the President is trying to say that which will be well received by someone.
The President is most certainly assuring our non-nuclear allies that we will still do anything to protect them, including nuking the bad guys, and most certainly aware that our enemies who might attack us still know that we will do anything to protect ourselves, including nuking the bad guys. So the only ones who this could be directed at are those he has enough contempt for to tell them what they want to hear and enough confidence that they will believe him.
The promises seem shallow and meaningless and I expect him to lose friends just as my friend’s crush lost hers. The world is a suspicious place, where the US is concerned in particular. Very few places have populations gullible enough to believe promises of restraint prior to an uneven or unfair fight. Protected and secure people are often the most gullible and I suspect that the President is accustomed to talking to and hearing from such people in this country. I fear that the rest of the world will react in much the same way they have to the rest of the President’s speeches suggesting that the US should be a softer presence in the world. I fear that they will applaud his words, and continue with the same principled foreign policy they had before such proclamations. I fear that the shallow promise, not based on any clear principle, will stand out in contrast to the principled foreign policies of these countries and of America past. I fear that only those who have temporarily suspended disbelief will believe our President, and that only those who would attack us or our allies will consider acting on it. I fear that advertising some arbitrary limit to our defense has only rhetorical gain, but considerable potential loss.