McCain won't rule out pre-emptive war

[helot2000]

If McCain had said he wouldn't rule out a pre-emptive strike, I'd have less of a problem with this.

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."

Perhaps I'm putting too much emphasis on the difference between a pre-emptive strike and Bush's pre-emptive war.  I don't see how a pre-emptive war does anything for you if you have information that someone is going to launch a weapon that "would devastate America."  And here in the Real World, how many times are we going to get actionable intelligence like this?  Lets use North Korea for an example.  They supposedly have ICBMs that may or may not reach the U.S.  If Kim Jong decides to pop one of those off, are we going to get a heads up?  A war like Iraq takes months to set up as we ferry troops and heavy equipment in by air and sea.  A strike can be launched in minutes. 

[denoginizer]

Why would any President publicly rule out anything?  I doubt any of the 3 remaining candidates would categorically rule out any options publicly.

[helot2000]

Why would any President publicly rule out anything?  I doubt any of the 3 remaining candidates would categorically rule out any options publicly.

Because in the post-Bush era, it would be wise to distance ourselves from the flawed parts of the Bush Doctrine.  The "preventative war" we waged in Iraq was misguided from the start.  To say that we might retain the option to pursue this kind of policy sounds like we haven't learned anything.  This column explains it quite effectively.

Richard Betts of Columbia University's Institute of War and Peace Studies says that a preemptive war is akin to having two cowboys face each other at high noon. One will draw first, shooting in preemptive fashion. A preventive war, on the other hand, would amount to walking up to a cowboy in a saloon while he's playing cards, and shooting him point blank in the head.

[msduncan]

Why would any President publicly rule out anything?  I doubt any of the 3 remaining candidates would categorically rule out any options publicly.

Because in the post-Bush era, it would be wise to distance ourselves from the flawed parts of the Bush Doctrine.  The "preventative war" we waged in Iraq was misguided from the start.  To say that we might retain the option to pursue this kind of policy sounds like we haven't learned anything.  This column explains it quite effectively.

Richard Betts of Columbia University's Institute of War and Peace Studies says that a preemptive war is akin to having two cowboys face each other at high noon. One will draw first, shooting in preemptive fashion. A preventive war, on the other hand, would amount to walking up to a cowboy in a saloon while he's playing cards, and shooting him point blank in the head.

I think it's a bad analogy.    A better analogy would be a sheriff walking into a saloon while the bad guy is playing cards and running him out of town before he decides to cause trouble or rob the bank tomorrow.     

Either way -- ruling out a course of action is bad news for a President.    Ruling out a possible course of action that has national security implications underminds any future sabre rattling you might need to do to get a point across -- even if you never plan to use preemptive action or war as an option in reality.

[Electronic Dan]

Lets use North Korea for an example.  They supposedly have ICBMs that may or may not reach the U.S.  If Kim Jong decides to pop one of those off, are we going to get a heads up? 

One would hope that our satellites and other intelligence gathering services would maybe give us some warning if Kim decides to start prepping ICBMs, yes.   Thats one of the reasons we have them, so we have some insight into other countries and try to predict what they are going to do.

Like denoginizer says, candidates aren't going to rule out any options that will tie their hands down the line.

[helot2000]

Lets use North Korea for an example.  They supposedly have ICBMs that may or may not reach the U.S.  If Kim Jong decides to pop one of those off, are we going to get a heads up? 

One would hope that our satellites and other intelligence gathering services would maybe give us some warning if Kim decides to start prepping ICBMs, yes.   Thats one of the reasons we have them, so we have some insight into other countries and try to predict what they are going to do.

Like denoginizer says, candidates aren't going to rule out any options that will tie their hands down the line.

I'm swimming against the tide but I want to take one more crack at this.  When it comes to ICBMs, our satellites would show when an ICBM is launched.  The satellite won't show who its launched at.  It won't show whether its carrying a nuclear payload or whether it is a test rocket-thus, the importance of announcing to the world "Test!" before you pop one off.  If we really think there is a nuclear payload on its way to the US, then its too late for a pre-emptive war or a pre emptive strike.  We would be making a retaliatory strike. 

As for intelligence gathering, that's a problem in countries like Iran, North Korea and Iraq in the Saddam days.  We had spies in Iraq back in the day but Saddam caught and liquidated them.  That's why we ended up guessing about WMD and being quite wrong.  That's my point.  Under the Bush Doctrine and pre emptive war (or preventative war if you like), you can invade a country on the grounds that they might be a threat to you some time in the future.  The intelligence community admits we have little information about whats happening in Iran.  Whats going on in North Korea is just a guess.  Guessing is poor grounds for a Casus belli.

The best I can hope for is that McCain has a better idea than his predecessor of what it means to put US lives on the line in a war. And really, as long as we are in Iraq, we have no extra troops for another war anyway.

[unbreakable]

Why would any President publicly rule out anything?  I doubt any of the 3 remaining candidates would categorically rule out any options publicly.

Possibly also because pre-emptive war is in violation of the UN Charter, and various international laws?


But honestly, does ANYONE expect anything other than "Stay The Course" rhetoric out of John McClone?  Seriously?  This is a guy who was singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" not all that long ago, and who continues to repeatedly lie about Iran in his attempt to warmonger.

The dude already violated a campaign finance bill he co-authored, and is looking at 5 years in prison for violating public financing laws.  So does anyone REALLY think McCain would have any respect for rule of law?

[rickfc]

I'm going to take a stab at this from a different angle.  Remember this beauty?  "Read my lips...No new taxes!"  And what happened a year or so later?  Exactly.

Regardless of what he may believe, he may very well be for or against preemptive war, John McCain is looking at his re-election chances.  What happens if he commits one way or another now and is forced to contradict that statement during his presidency, should he be elected?  That would haunt him for the remainder of his presidency and possibly cost him re-election.

That really applies to any greasy politician. 

[unbreakable]

Well that's the great thing about McCain.  No matter where you stand... on any issue... McCain has been a stanch supporter of that very viewpoint at one time or another.

No wonder he just defers to believing what Bush believes- his own opinions depend on the time of day and the weather.

[Electronic Dan]

  When it comes to ICBMs, our satellites would show when an ICBM is launched.  The satellite won't show who its launched at.  It won't show whether its carrying a nuclear payload or whether it is a test rocket-thus, the importance of announcing to the world "Test!" before you pop one off.  If we really think there is a nuclear payload on its way to the US, then its too late for a pre-emptive war or a pre emptive strike.  We would be making a retaliatory strike. 

Umm, our spy satellites are capable of watching launching pads prior to the actual launching, and by observing the missile preparation (and using our other intelligence observation and analysis), we can deduce things prior to the actual launch.

As for intelligence gathering, that's a problem in countries like Iran, North Korea and Iraq in the Saddam days.  We had spies in Iraq back in the day but Saddam caught and liquidated them. 

Did he?  I haven't heard that.

There is a problem with human intelligence, to be sure, since we moved away from that into technology based intelligence, but from what I understand, we've been moving back towards it since 9/11. 

That's why we ended up guessing about WMD and being quite wrong.  That's my point.

Yes, intelligence isn't fool proof - you're making an educated guess based on incomplete information.  But we aren't the only ones who made that mistake - pretty much every major intelligence group believed that Saddam was still involved in WMD programs.  There have been reports that there was a false front put up to make the Iranians think they had WMD programs, and some even suggested that Saddam thought there was a WMD program (presumably his advisers or scientists realized he was too nuts for them to actually make).  When you fire an ICBM and make it look like the real deal and purposefully avoid yelling "TEST!", it's not that surprising when people think it might be real.

  Under the Bush Doctrine and pre emptive war (or preventative war if you like), you can invade a country on the grounds that they might be a threat to you some time in the future.

And that's where the problem lies.  They will attack "some time in the future" is pretty vague - is it two days from now?  Six months from now?  fifteen years from now?

I would say that you need to pursue other courses of actions until either:

1. It is clear that other courses of action will not prevent the threat.

or...

2.  the window for successfully preventing the threat is beginning to close.

The intelligence community admits we have little information about whats happening in Iran.  Whats going on in North Korea is just a guess.  Guessing is poor grounds for a Casus belli.

Guessing is, unfortunately, a part of intelligence work - nothing is a certainty.  But if you can come up with substantial evidence that a country is planning to attack, you make use of that intelligence, you don't ignore it.

[Electronic Dan]

Just to point out... 

The Cuban missile crisis could be considered an example of preemptive war.  We had evidence of what the Russians were doing, and while they hadn't attacked us, we used a blockade - an act of war - against them.  Fortunately, the issue was resolved before things escalated.

[unbreakable]

Seeing how Iran has not actually attacked anyone, like, ever... it's kind of a stretch to claim they are somehow preparing an attack.

I think the entire issue, as far as the Bushites are concerned, is one of Iran acquiring a nuclear deterrent.  Many people are very happy with the status quo, where they can violate Iran's borders with impunity, blow stuff up, etc.  Now if Iran were to become a nuclear armed state, then all of a sudden people are going to have to respect their borders, and the "game" being played in the Middle East changes out of Saudi Arabia's favor (since America has been their proxy for decades).

This entire "pre-emptive" or "preventative" doctrine needs to be denounced as the bullshit it really is.  If any nation can attack anyone just because they perceive they could, at some point, somehow possibly maybe be a threat sometime in an unforseen future... that means every nation may as well just attack every other one.  It's advocating a complete breakdown in all foreign relations, since no country has any basis for trusting any other.

The truly sad thing was, the US used to be one of the biggest advocates of international relations, and now the US symbolizes torture, illegal detention, and unchecked aggression to many nations in the world.  That's the thing about being a leader: people are going to follow your lead, good or bad.

Just to point out... 

The Cuban missile crisis could be considered an example of preemptive war.  We had evidence of what the Russians were doing, and while they hadn't attacked us, we used a blockade - an act of war - against them.  Fortunately, the issue was resolved before things escalated.

It's kind of interesting- if you look at the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, you find out the US had been blockading Japan for a while, which was why they attacked where they did.

[Electronic Dan]

Possibly also because pre-emptive war is in violation of the UN Charter, and various international laws?

You sure about that?

Analysts have interpreted this in several ways. Since the interpretation of Article 51 has been left up to the principal bodies of the UN, especially the Security Council, this has led to a certain amount of flexibilty. The UN itself have granted some leeway in form of the reading ”where there is very clear evidence that an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent and would be overwhelming, and would make the awaiting of the armed attack disastrous for the attacked country…”.

http://fifthdimension.wordpress.com/tag/bush-doctrine/

[Electronic Dan]

Seeing how Iran has not actually attacked anyone, like, ever...

Of course not.  They use their proxies to do the attacking for them. 

Now if Iran were to become a nuclear armed state, then all of a sudden people are going to have to respect their borders

Yeah, and I'm sure Iran will start respecting borders and the sovereignty of other countries once they acquire nuclear weapons.

It's kind of interesting- if you look at the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, you find out the US had been blockading Japan for a while, which was why they attacked where they did.

You're thinking of an embargo, not a blockade.

[denoginizer]

Of course Iran is not going to attack the United State with nuclear weapns. But I think given Iran's public statments about the state of Isreal, a Nuclear armed Iran is a scary proposition. 

[unbreakable]

Possibly also because pre-emptive war is in violation of the UN Charter, and various international laws?

You sure about that?

Analysts have interpreted this in several ways. Since the interpretation of Article 51 has been left up to the principal bodies of the UN, especially the Security Council, this has led to a certain amount of flexibilty. The UN itself have granted some leeway in form of the reading ”where there is very clear evidence that an armed attack, having not yet occurred, is nevertheless imminent and would be overwhelming, and would make the awaiting of the armed attack disastrous for the attacked country…”.

http://fifthdimension.wordpress.com/tag/bush-doctrine/

From Article 2 of the of the UN Charter:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The wording seems quite clear.

It's kind of interesting- if you look at the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, you find out the US had been blockading Japan for a while, which was why they attacked where they did.

You're thinking of an embargo, not a blockade.

No, I'm thinking of a blockade, where naval ships were prohibiting shipments of goods (oil, steel, etc) to Japan.

Japan didn't attack because we wouldn't sell them something.  They attacked because they weren't being allowed to purchase those goods, at all, from any source.

[unbreakable]

Of course Iran is not going to attack the United State with nuclear weapns. But I think given Iran's public statments about the state of Isreal, a Nuclear armed Iran is a scary proposition. 

And American politicians and pundits muse openly about nuking various countries as well.  How many conservatives talked about nuking Iraq (or even Iran) in the past several years?

I really don't view chatter and bravado to be scary, but then again not many things scare me.  I'm not hiding under my bed terrified that "ZOMG Teh Terrrrrrrerrrrrists" are going to blow up my apartment, either.  I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying.

[Electronic Dan]

From Article 2 of the of the UN Charter:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The wording seems quite clear.

Please, when have lawyers or politicians ever written anything that was as clear as it seems?

Article 51 says nothing in the charter trumps self defense, which, as shown above, includes preemmptive attack to prevent an imminent threat.

It's kind of interesting- if you look at the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, you find out the US had been blockading Japan for a while, which was why they attacked where they did.

You're thinking of an embargo, not a blockade.

No, I'm thinking of a blockade, where naval ships were prohibiting shipments of goods (oil, steel, etc) to Japan.

No, it was an embargo, not a blockade.  Saying so doesn't make it so.

[denoginizer]

I really don't view chatter and bravado to be scary, but then again not many things scare me.  I'm not hiding under my bed terrified that "ZOMG Teh Terrrrrrrerrrrrists" are going to blow up my apartment, either.  I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying.

Why would it scare you?  Do you live in Tel Aviv?  If I lived in Israel, a nation which has called for the removal of my nation from the face of the earth acquiring nuclear weapons would be a cause for concern.  Then again clearly I am not as brave as you are.

No, it was an embargo, not a blockade.  Saying so doesn't make it so.

It does in Unbreakable's mind.

The U.S. stopped selling oil to Japan in July of 1941, which was part of the motivation for the attack from Japan’s perspective. We were their major oil supplier, and the shipments were stopped in protest of Japan's invasion of French Indochina in early 41. This embargo would've ground their economy to a halt in fairly short order, forcing them to find oil elsewhere. But before they could do that, they had to make sure we wouldn't be able to interfere with their expansion.  Which led to the il-concieved war with the United States.  The US did not impose a blockade on Japan before Peal Harbor. I have no idea where Unbreakable is getting that from.

[helot2000]

As for intelligence gathering, that's a problem in countries like Iran, North Korea and Iraq in the Saddam days.  We had spies in Iraq back in the day but Saddam caught and liquidated them. 

Did he?  I haven't heard that.

If you're ever bored, this PBS Frontline was quite good.  Here is the tidbit: 

FRANK ANDERSON, CIA Near East Division Chief (1991-1994): It's frequently the case that the CIA is called upon to develop some kind of a covert action program in response to intractable and maybe even insoluble problems that confront the government.

NARRATOR: In Baghdad, a special unit of Iraqi intelligence has studied every coup of the 20th century. Saddam Hussein is ready.

AHMAD CHALABI, Iraqi Opposition Leader: Saddam is a far better plotter, a more apt and accomplished plotter, than the CIA will ever be. He is good.

NARRATOR: Saddam believes he knows who will betray him even before they know it themselves. The CIA thinks it has recruited officers within Saddam's tight inner circle.

TARIQ AZIZ, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister: They don't know the officers in the army. How could they manage a coup d'etat, a military coup d'etat? Whom do they know? Hmm?

NARRATOR: The plotters have been told that America would recognize them as Iraq's new leaders. They have been given special mobile phones with direct lines to the CIA. But Saddam had penetrated the coup. His agents burst into homes across Baghdad. They torture and execute hundreds of officers.

Then they find the CIA's phones. An Iraqi agent intelligence officer places a call. An American agent answers. He is told, "Your men are dead. Pack up and go home." 

[Electronic Dan]

If you're ever bored, this PBS Frontline was quite good.  Here is the tidbit: 

Thanks for the link.  Maybe not the surprising, given how paranoid Saddam was.

[helot2000]

Electric, you and I are not so far apart in our positions as it might seem.  I know that my motives and hopes and fears are not the motives and hopes (and fears) of everybody else in the US, much less McCain.  War and how we as a nation go to war is worth discussing a lot between now and November.  Instead, I suspect we'll be treated to one party telling us how McCain is Bush Redux and the Obama is a closet radical & racist.   Too bad for the thinking electorate.     

[Electronic Dan]

Electric, you and I are not so far apart in our positions as it might seem.  I know that my motives and hopes and fears are not the motives and hopes (and fears) of everybody else in the US, much less McCain.  War and how we as a nation go to war is worth discussing a lot between now and November.  Instead, I suspect we'll be treated to one party telling us how McCain is Bush Redux and the Obama is a closet radical & racist.   Too bad for the thinking electorate.     

Agreed.  Though at least McCain and Obama (if not their followers/parties) seem to be steering clear of the name calling... for now.

[Creepy_Smell]

Electric, you and I are not so far apart in our positions as it might seem.

You and I are very much alike.

The wording makes me think of Raiders and now I can't help but read the post hearing Belloq's voice in my head.

[Electronic Dan]

Electric, you and I are not so far apart in our positions as it might seem.

You and I are very much alike.

The wording makes me think of Raiders and now I can't help but read the post hearing Belloq's voice in my head.

Now you're getting nasty. 

[helot2000]

Electric, you and I are not so far apart in our positions as it might seem.  I know that my motives and hopes and fears are not the motives and hopes (and fears) of everybody else in the US, much less McCain.  War and how we as a nation go to war is worth discussing a lot between now and November.  Instead, I suspect we'll be treated to one party telling us how McCain is Bush Redux and the Obama is a closet radical & racist.   Too bad for the thinking electorate.     

Agreed.  Though at least McCain and Obama (if not their followers/parties) seem to be steering clear of the name calling... for now.

I sometimes overedit.  I started by using the word "527s" but then pitched it in favor of "party."  I expect and look forward to a civil and professional campaign from these two.  I'm pleased to hear Obama refer to McCain as an American hero.  And I was equally pleased when I heard McCain disown some over the top stunt by a radio talk show host who was introducing him.  It would be very cool if we could look forward to what Gingrich proposed as a modern Lincoln-Douglas style debate and discussion of the issues of our day.  Of course, I'm dreaming again...

A challenge arrived at the office of every presidential candidate about two weeks ago. It was a letter, signed by journalist Marvin Kalb and me, challenging each one, Republican and Democrat, to sign on for "Nine Nineties in Nine." That is, if nominated, they would pledge to take part in nine 90-minute debates in the nine weeks leading up to election day.

How is this different? We are asking the candidates to throw out the rule book that has stifled political debate. Each party's nominee would be expected to present and defend solutions in a one-on-one dialogue with his or her opponent. The moderator would only keep time and introduce topics.

[unbreakable]

From Article 2 of the of the UN Charter:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

The wording seems quite clear.

Please, when have lawyers or politicians ever written anything that was as clear as it seems?

Article 51 says nothing in the charter trumps self defense, which, as shown above, includes preemmptive attack to prevent an imminent threat.

However, there's never been anything demonstrating that attacking Iraq could have possibly been self defense.  They didn't really have the resources or manpower to invade the US, and the UN found no evidence of even a WMD program, much less WMD.

I really don't view chatter and bravado to be scary, but then again not many things scare me.  I'm not hiding under my bed terrified that "ZOMG Teh Terrrrrrrerrrrrists" are going to blow up my apartment, either.  I'm not saying you do, I'm just saying.

Why would it scare you?  Do you live in Tel Aviv?  If I lived in Israel, a nation which has called for the removal of my nation from the face of the earth acquiring nuclear weapons would be a cause for concern.  Then again clearly I am not as brave as you are.

I think people living in Israel have more immediate concerns than what Iran's doing.  Like, say, that little Palestinian problem they've neglected to resolve for the past few decades.

No, it was an embargo, not a blockade.  Saying so doesn't make it so.

It does in Unbreakable's mind.

The U.S. stopped selling oil to Japan in July of 1941, which was part of the motivation for the attack from Japan’s perspective. We were their major oil supplier, and the shipments were stopped in protest of Japan's invasion of French Indochina in early 41. This embargo would've ground their economy to a halt in fairly short order, forcing them to find oil elsewhere. But before they could do that, they had to make sure we wouldn't be able to interfere with their expansion.  Which led to the il-concieved war with the United States.  The US did not impose a blockade on Japan before Peal Harbor. I have no idea where Unbreakable is getting that from.

That is why you fail.

We can refer to this, henceforth, as "Tony's Law":

"Those who fail to learn the past are doomed to defend it on teh Intarnet."

[denoginizer]

Umm.  Where does that document talk about a blockade?

[unbreakable]

Umm.  Where does that document talk about a blockade?

Inside of it, at several points?

That's not the source of my opinion, since I know that's going to be your next claim (those who cannot prove their point attack the source or the speaker).  It's just the one which is most readily at hand.

[denoginizer]

From the memo:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war.

Please tell me how that memo proves your point about a blockade of Japan actually happening.  Or are you pulling stuff out of your ass again?

[unbreakable]

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance
with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security
of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the
power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the
United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy
through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal
with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very
serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted
or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez
Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis
powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual
elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus
[3]
opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for
Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be
diverted if the British and American ( ) blockade of Europe
and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the
conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by
the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any
help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that
Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy
could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept
fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.
A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable
arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective
in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating
our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike
at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely
strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in
addition, such action would increase the confidence and support
of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

Reading: it's both an art and a science.


But here's the money-shot (excluding your creating editing, of course):

9. It is not believed that in the present state of
political opinion the United States government is capable of
declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the
Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following
course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war.

[CSL]

I think people living in Israel have more immediate concerns than what Iran's doing.  Like, say, that little Palestinian problem they've neglected to resolve for the past few decades.

Nation states can't have more than one policy goal? Besides its clear that from an Israeli perspective the notion of Iran or any other Arab nation getting a nuclear weapon is of far, far, far more concern than anything the Palestinians and their proxy leaders in Tehran or Damascus could do. Israel's first policy goal is always going to be to prevent any nation in that region from getting a nuclear bomb. That and the Palestinian problem has been just as much the fault of the Palestinians themselves, or at least their political leaders apparent lack of sanity until recently.

That is why you fail.

The simple fact is that the embargo was not a blockade - it may look like it simply because the principal oil producing powers of the region - basically the United States and to a lesser extent the Dutch in the Indies - weren't going to deal with Japan until they began changing their policies towards China. So you got basically one policy memo from a Lieutenant Commander in the Office of Naval Intelligence and Dudley Knox - who was serving as a naval historian at the time - which apparently in your mind shows that there was a preemptive desire to go to war with Japan.

I mean, i've seen flimsy arguments before - but this might take the case.

[denoginizer]

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance
with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security
of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the
power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the
United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy
through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal
with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very
serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted
or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez
Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis
powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual
elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus
[3]
opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for
Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be
diverted if the British and American ( ) blockadeof Europe
and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the
conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by
the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any
help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that
Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy
could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept
fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.
A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable
arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective
in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating
our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike
at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely
strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in
addition, such action would increase the confidence and support
of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

Reading: it's both an art and a science.


But here's the money-shot:

9. It is not believed that in the present state of
political opinion the United States government is capable of
declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the
Japanese to modify their attitude. Therefore, the following
course of action is suggested:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of
British bases in the Pacific, particularly
Singapore.
B. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of
base facilities and acquisition of supplies
in the Dutch East Indies.
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government
of Chiang-Kai-Shek.
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to
the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in
the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese
demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil.
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan,
in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed
by the British Empire.

10. If by these means Japan could be led to commit an
overt act of war, so much the better. At all events we must be fully
prepared to accept the threat of war.

How does that prove that we actually blockaded Japan?  Seriously is that the best you've got?

I'm starting to think that you just enjoy arguing.  Anyone who could read that and say categorically that we used our Navy to blockade Japan before Pearl Harbor is completely delusional.  Hell even the Japanese have never said that we were blockaiding them in their explanations of their reasons for the attack at Pearl Harbor.

[unbreakable]

I think people living in Israel have more immediate concerns than what Iran's doing.  Like, say, that little Palestinian problem they've neglected to resolve for the past few decades.

Nation states can't have more than one policy goal? Besides its clear that from an Israeli perspective the notion of Iran or any other Arab nation getting a nuclear weapon is of far, far, far more concern than anything the Palestinians and their proxy leaders in Tehran or Damascus could do. Israel's first policy goal is always going to be to prevent any nation in that region from getting a nuclear bomb. That and the Palestinian problem has been just as much the fault of the Palestinians themselves, or at least their political leaders apparent lack of sanity until recently.

Yes, and of course you are using your vast knowledge of Iran's unchecked aggression toward everyone in the region throughout world history as the basis of your conclusion?

That is why you fail.

The simple fact is that the embargo was not a blockade - it may look like it simply because the principal oil producing powers of the region - basically the United States and to a lesser extent the Dutch in the Indies - weren't going to deal with Japan until they began changing their policies towards China. So you got basically one policy memo from a Lieutenant Commander in the Office of Naval Intelligence and Dudley Knox - who was serving as a naval historian at the time - which apparently in your mind shows that there was a preemptive desire to go to war with Japan.

I mean, i've seen flimsy arguments before - but this might take the case.

Those who cannot prove their point attack the source or the speaker.

Or both, of course.

[unbreakable]

How does that prove that we actually blockaded Japan?  Seriously is that the best you've got?

No, but feel free to do your own homework.  That's not what my conclusion was based on, it was just the most readily available.

You can also try picking up a book or something.  I've heard they contain lots of information.

[CSL]

You need to read a little further...

4. In the Pacific, Japan by virtue of her alliance
with Germany and Italy is a definite threat to the security
of the British Empire and once the British Empire is gone the
power of Japan-Germany and Italy is to be directed against the
United States. A powerful land attack by Germany and Italy
through the Balkans and North Africa against the Suez Canal
with a Japanese threat or attack on Singapore would have very
serious results for the British Empire. Could Japan be diverted
or neutralized, the fruits of a successful attack on the Suez
Canal could not be as far reaching and beneficial to the Axis
powers as if such a success was also accompanied by the virtual
elimination of British sea power from the Indian Ocean, thus
[3]
opening up a European supply route for Japan and a sea route for
Eastern raw materials to reach Germany and Italy, Japan must be
diverted if the British and American ( ) blockade of Europe
and possibly Japan (?) is to remain even partially in effect.

The author is stating that Japan is a huge potential problem for the British Empire and the potential cooperation of the United States with them. Now he's arguing that rather rapidly the United States is going to be helping Britain even more overtly with a blockade of Europe - which is already de facto happening starting around now as the United States begins sinking any U-Boat it finds past the midway mark of the Atlantic. He's only saying thereafter that another blockade against Japan will occur if Japan goes to war against Britain or the United States.

8. A consideration of the foregoing leads to the
conclusion that prompt aggressive naval action against Japan by
the United States would render Japan incapable of affording any
help to Germany and Italy in their attack on England and that
Japan itself would be faced with a situation in which her navy
could be forced to fight on most unfavorable terms or accept
fairly early collapse of the country through the force of blockade.
A prompt and early declaration of war after entering into suitable
arrangements with England and Holland, would be most effective
in bringing about the early collapse of Japan and thus eliminating
our enemy in the pacific before Germany and Italy could strike
at us effectively. Furthermore, elimination of Japan must surely
strengthen Britain's position against Germany and Italy and, in
addition, such action would increase the confidence and support
of all nations who tend to be friendly towards us.

Again, you're not reading this correctly - it's simply a basic considering or analysis of what would happen if Japan goes to war with the United States. It's clear that naval action would result at the start of any war and from their prespective at the time the United States would win that rather handily having more battleships and the like (remember carriers aren't considered the kings of battle yet) and that thereafter a blockade would be instituted after the start of war.

In both these paragraphs there are references to a blockade - but only in a hypothetical situation in which Japan attacks the United States first. Maybe you're just trying to dig up proof where none exists.

[unbreakable]

If you want to continue the discussion, take it to it's own thread.  You're making it hard to ridicule McCain here.

[CSL]

I think people living in Israel have more immediate concerns than what Iran's doing.  Like, say, that little Palestinian problem they've neglected to resolve for the past few decades.

Nation states can't have more than one policy goal? Besides its clear that from an Israeli perspective the notion of Iran or any other Arab nation getting a nuclear weapon is of far, far, far more concern than anything the Palestinians and their proxy leaders in Tehran or Damascus could do. Israel's first policy goal is always going to be to prevent any nation in that region from getting a nuclear bomb. That and the Palestinian problem has been just as much the fault of the Palestinians themselves, or at least their political leaders apparent lack of sanity until recently.

Yes, and of course you are using your vast knowledge of Iran's unchecked aggression toward everyone in the region throughout world history as the basis of your conclusion?

We'd also say the same thing before the United States invaded Iraq - that the United States would never begin a preemptive war of aggression, but they did up and do exactly that.

Perhaps its just the simplistic way in which you view these things but just because a nation hasn't done something such as declare an overt state sactioned war in the last century or so doesn't mean it isn't capable of doing so. Moreover if you're so deluded to thing that Iran hasn't been engaged in an underground proxy war against Israel by funding terrorist organizations then you have no conception of what constitutes an act of war.

[unbreakable]

I think people living in Israel have more immediate concerns than what Iran's doing.  Like, say, that little Palestinian problem they've neglected to resolve for the past few decades.

Nation states can't have more than one policy goal? Besides its clear that from an Israeli perspective the notion of Iran or any other Arab nation getting a nuclear weapon is of far, far, far more concern than anything the Palestinians and their proxy leaders in Tehran or Damascus could do. Israel's first policy goal is always going to be to prevent any nation in that region from getting a nuclear bomb. That and the Palestinian problem has been just as much the fault of the Palestinians themselves, or at least their political leaders apparent lack of sanity until recently.

Yes, and of course you are using your vast knowledge of Iran's unchecked aggression toward everyone in the region throughout world history as the basis of your conclusion?

We'd also say the same thing before the United States invaded Iraq - that the United States would never begin a preemptive war of aggression, but they did up and do exactly that.

Yes, they never have.  Except for Cuba.  And Texas/Mexico.  And that whole genocide thing against the Native Americans.  And Korea.  And Vietnam.  And so on and so forth.

Perhaps its just the simplistic way in which you view these things but just because a nation hasn't done something such as declare an overt state sactioned war in the last century or so doesn't mean it isn't capable of doing so. Moreover if you're so deluded to thing that Iran hasn't been engaged in an underground proxy war against Israel by funding terrorist organizations then you have no conception of what constitutes an act of war.

Or perhaps it's just that you view history in too self-serving a manner.  America has never been the straight dealer most people delude themselves into thinking it is.

[Exodor]

Yes, they never have.  Except for Cuba.  And Texas/Mexico.  And that whole genocide thing against the Native Americans.  And Korea.  And Vietnam.  And so on and so forth.

 

Explain to me how America's involvement in Vietnam was a pre-emptive war of aggression.