Hillary's Nuclear 'Tough-Gal-ism' |
For years now – arguably for decades – the dominant ideology of Washington has been what could be called “tough-guy-ism,” which usually consists of politicians and pundits competing for the most belligerent pose on any given foreign policy issue.
Sometimes the results can be comical, with arm-chair warriors who have never been near a real battlefield spouting military jargon and threatening America’s “enemies.” Other times, the consequences can be tragic, as when the Washington Rambos get their way and send someone else or someone else’s kids off to kill or be killed in a misguided war.
Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is now indulging in what might be called “tough-gal-ism” as she berates rival contender Barack Obama for allegedly showing his inexperience by not brandishing nuclear weapons against possible al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But Sen. Clinton of New York, who often touts her White House experience as an informal adviser to President Bill Clinton, actually has positioned herself as a more belligerent nuclear warrior than her husband, and much closer to George W. Bush.
“Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or non-use,” Sen. Clinton said on Aug. 2, chastising Sen. Obama of Illinois for saying the idea of attacking suspected terrorist targets with nuclear weapons was “not on the table.”
However, Obama’s position – foreswearing nuclear attacks on non-nuclear adversaries – appears to be more in line with President Clinton’s policy than Sen. Clinton’s position. In the 1990s, as part of a non-proliferation strategy, the Clinton administration adopted a policy of no nuclear first strikes against non-nuclear states.
President Clinton’s thinking was that a pledge of no first strike against non-nuclear states would reduce the incentive for non-nuclear states to develop nuclear weapons.
In a November/December 1998 report, the nonpartisan Arms Control Association described the Clinton policy – and its ambiguities – this way:
“Speaking for President Clinton, then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher declared in 1995 that the United States would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) unless such states attacked the United States, its forces or its allies ‘in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.’
“Discussing the November 1997 presidential decision directive (PDD-60), Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, broadened Christopher's statement to include the option of responding with nuclear weapons to attacks by non-nuclear states-parties to the NPT that are not in ‘good standing,’ such as Iraq and North Korea. Other U.S. officials, however, have claimed at times that all options are open in responding to chemical and biological attacks.”
Though President Clinton’s policy did not address a situation in which a non-nuclear stateless group like al-Qaeda was hiding inside a nuclear-armed state like Pakistan, Sen. Clinton’s position of putting the nuclear option on the table would seem to go against the logic of the Clinton administration’s strategy.
Even by raising the possibility of a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear enemy, Sen. Clinton risks exacerbating tensions in the Muslim world, reduces America’s moral standing even further, and creates a stronger incentive for Islamists in Pakistan to cooperate with al-Qaeda on securing a nuclear weapon for use against the United States.
In other words, Sen. Clinton’s tough-gal posture – much like President Bush’s tough-guy-ism – could contribute to less security for the American people, not more. She also is positioning herself closer to Bush’s policy of not setting any prior constraints on nuclear first use than to her husband’s nuanced approach.
[For more on the development of Bush’s nuclear-war policy, see our new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]
Political Calamity
The very thought of launching a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear adversary also would dig the United States even deeper into its growing image as a pariah state as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
One can only imagine the world’s reaction if the United States dropped a nuclear bomb on some village in Afghanistan or Pakistan, killing large numbers of civilians, including children. The political and moral fallout possibly would represent a greater calamity than any nuclear fallout.
Beyond questions of policy and morality, however, there is also the issue of military practicality. If the United States had enough “actionable intelligence” to know where Osama bin Laden was, conventional weapons would do just fine in killing him.
According to military and intelligence experts, the chief problem in eliminating bin Laden has not been the power of the weapons available but the lack of reliable and timely information as bin Laden moves from safe house to safe house in a remote territory near the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Not even the neoconservative hard-liners in the Bush administration have pushed the idea of nuking Afghanistan or Pakistan. They have toyed with the possible use of nuclear weapons to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, but there is no indication the nuclear option is in play when it comes to fighting al-Qaeda.
Obama is essentially right when he says “there’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons [in the context of Pakistan and Afghanistan]. That’s not on the table.”
In response to questions from the Associated Press on Aug. 2, Obama also said: “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance” in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
Though Obama’s comments might have struck many observers as simple common sense, Sen. Clinton saw an opening to chide Obama over his supposed lack of experience. She positioned herself as the sage foreign policy expert, the tough-minded realist who could toss around nuclear-war rhetoric like a modern-day Henry Kissinger.
Instead, Sen. Clinton may have reminded the Democratic base that her determination to prove her “tough-gal” credentials has again put her inside Bush’s “tough-guy” fraternity, the same group of hot heads who led the United States into the disastrous Iraq War – with Sen. Clinton’s support.
Ironically, in jabbing at Obama, Sen. Clinton also implicitly dissed her husband – making him out as some sort of softie peacenik who was out of the mainstream of past presidents because he set some standards for when nuclear weapons should not be an option.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.
To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.