Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Prophylactic War

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on Sat, 09/13/2008 - 10:59am
Departments: 
Department of War
Thread: 
Iraq Clusterfuck
Tags: 
Bush Doctrine

So hat tip to BTD at Talk Left for the link to Matt Yglesias piece regarding the "Bush Doctrine". Unfortunately, for varying reasons, each author's post focuses on the Palin angle (Bashing Palin for Yglesias, combating PDS for BTD).

What is missing is exploring one of the reasons why people who aren't thrilled about Obama (to put it mildly) still could find a reason to vote for him over risking McCain in office: John McCain apparently believes in Bush's idea of prophylactic (he would call "preventive") war.

From Yglesias:

"...George W. Bush has outlined a doctrine that he calls “preemption” but that’s really prevention or “anticipatory self-defense.” It holds that we should attack other countries that might attack us at some future point even if we have no particular evidence of a specific or imminent plan to do so. As we also know, John McCain agrees with this doctrine."

I would like Yglesias to put up some links showing that John McCain agrees with what I would prefer to call "prophylactic" war. I prefer the term because it is not only dismissive, but also more descriptive, going to the heart of the lizard brain rationale which gives the "Bush Doctrine" appeal to the lizard brain set. A prophylactic is a barrier, a preventive barrier which prevents something "bad" from happening based on actions you are taking which if you didn't take, wouldn't happen. Preventive implies you may just be sitting there, minding your own business and all of a sudden "BAM" something bad happens to you. A prophylactic is only required when you are taking an action (like manipulating Middle East politics to ensure a steady flow of oil) which includes a risk of injury, or maybe "contamination". Another plus for the lizard brained.

My assumption is that Obama is not a prophylactic war adherent, and would not pursue a "Trojan" war (if you will since I couldn't resist) against Iran or North Korea, or even Russia (or it's surrogates).

That would be a powerful distinction between Obama and McCain, it would be at least if you believe Congress would be too chicken-hearted to restrain McCain....

0
No votes yet

Comments

makana44's picture
Submitted by makana44 on

that McCain is a lizard brain who will take us to war willy nilly. Before Bush and 9/11 and the ascent of the neocons he acted like most men who'd seen the horrors of war, like Powell, Clark, and the Joint Chiefs who considered war the last option after all other avenues were exhausted.

It is my not-so-expert opinion that the McCain we've seen the last 4-6 years is no different in one sense than the Obama we've seen; though in diametrically opposite directions. To get the Republican nomination McCain had to create the appearance of being a neanderthal red-meat lizard brained neocon. To get the Democratic nomination Obama had to create the appearance of being a compassionate wheat grass FISA-hating liberal. Each is lying through his teeth to his base.

Bush and Cheney who'd avoided going to war felt the thrill running through their legs at the thought of wreaking shock and awe then sitting back and watching it on TV. Powell was gnashing his teeth. I'd rather put that decision into the hands of a man for whom war is a first-hand experience of hell than in one for whom it will be an existential exercise and test of his throbbing manhood; with Afghanistan being his first foray with the joystick.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Now, I think it's a correct analysis from Obama's writings and speeches before he began running for president that he does not support pre-emptive war. But, after mulling over this for a few weeks now I'm not so sure that McCain is quite as hawkish as both he's portrayed to be, and how he portrays himself, even. At least on our two recent wars, I no longer feel comfortable saying that we'd have been in Afghanistan if McCain had won the nomination in 2000, and we sure as hell wouldn't be in Iraq. That said, I can't say we wouldn't have been in some other country, today. lol

I think it's definitely correct to assume that Obama is definitely the safer bet for not being for pre-emption, but, I'm not sure that McCain is as trigger-happy and war-hungry as he's portrayed.

Submitted by gob on

I can't find independent confirmation or full context, but otoh googling doesn't turn up any refutation of what the DNC said in a press release last January:

As early as 2001 McCain was helping make the case for war with Iraq alongside Don Rumsfeld, one of the key figures named in yesterday's study. During a November 2001 episode of ABC's Nightline Rumsfeld, former CIA Director James Woolsey and McCain all made the case for invading Iraq, using the same misleading rhetoric. Rumsfeld claimed there were ties "between the terrorists in the Philippines and the al-Qaeda and people in Iraq." Woolsey suggested Iraq had "been involved in terrorist acts against the United States." And John McCain, given a chance to disagree, instead echoed both men and the Bush Administration, claiming there had "been significant involvement on the part of the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein in the acts of terror that have been committed in the past." [Nightline, 11/28/01]

Policy not party!

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

trigger happy and would start preemptive wars? If I recall, he was gung-ho on the war, too.

Supporting it, especially when it's the president of your own party, doesn't mean you'd have initiated it yourself.

McCain's belligerent, manichean rhetoric has bothered me since way before he first ran for president back in 2000. But I agree with DamonMI that McCain would be likely to be far, far more wary of throwing troops at international problems than Bush. Actual military guys rarely are.

Submitted by gob on

but it was the date that caught my eye. November 2001! To be talking war on Iraq then was not to be merely jumping on the bandwagon, surely?

Policy not party!

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

... the rubber match, after Iraq I and Iraq II?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I don't know if Obama is for preemptive war. That isn't the point. The Bush Doctrine is PREVENTIVE, not PREEMPTIVE. That is the major confusion here, Bush, Cheney, all their dim-bulb brain-trust tout PREVENTIVE war.

To the extent Palin had to ask for a clarification from Gibson about what he was referring to and then fell (mercifully) on the side of sanity against PREVENTIVE war but still for PREEMPTIVE war. To the extent that McCain does or does not believe in PREVENTIVE, PROPHYLACTIC WAR.

Sorry to shout.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

...Is not nearly as clearly defined as you seem to portray it to be, I don't think. I guess it dependsd on where one comes from. If you come from the left, you're more likely to see both as wars of choice, and if that's the case, than arguing the difference is semantics.

Anyway, Gob, if we're going to go into who responded positively to going to war with Iraq, than you can round-up more than half the Congress. McCain didn't come to the administration with the idea of going to war with Iraq. I feel pretty comfortable in saying that McCain's mind wouldn't have went to Iraq after 9/11. He and hundreds of other Congresspersons had to be led there. That's not to imply that having heard the idea and still deciding to go to war wasn't a bad thing (I still blame Hillary for that, too), but I think one must also judge each of these candidates on whether they would have been likely after 9/11 to get some hairbrained scheme to invade Iraq. To be honest, I don't think Obama, Hillary, or McCain would have came to that conclusion.