My Opinio Juris colleague Julian Ku noted there a few days ago that Bloomberg had reported that the Obama administration is considering plans to modify or end the Bush doctrine on preemptive use of military force:
The Pentagon is reviewing the Bush administration’s doctrine of preemptive military strikes with an eye to modifying or possibly ending it.
The international environment is “more complex” than when President George W. Bush announced the policy in 2002, Kathleen Hicks, the Defense Department’s deputy undersecretary for strategy, said in an interview. “We’d really like to update our use-of-force doctrine to start to take account for that.”
Meanwhile, in Moscow, while Secretary of State Clinton was getting a rather brusque treatment, reports appeared that Russia was endorsing not just preemptive use of military force — but even preemptive use of nuclear weapons, and that even in local or regional wars. As a Washington Times column summed up the reports:
The Russians succeeded in putting Mr. Obama and the Americans in their place. Nikolai Patrushev, the chief of the Presidential Security Council, manufactured an occasion while Mrs. Clinton was in Moscow to warn that Moscow reserves the right to make “a pre-emptive nuclear strike” against both small and large enemies.
In an interview with Izvestia, the important Moscow daily, he said Russian officials are examining “a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent.” In situations critical to national security, he said, “options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded.” Even regional or “local” wars will be included in the new strategy, expected to be official policy in December.
Bruce Hayden says:
To some extent, this is a bit silly, since one President cannot bind the next in this area. All it really does is reinforce the world perception that President Obama is going to be very passive with our enemies. Indeed, he can’t bind himself either, so he could change the policy at the stroke of a pen, should he wish. I don’t think anyone expects him to, but we really don’t know what is going to transpire over the next 3+ years. Bruce Hayden(Quote)
josh bornstein says:
I’m sorry; is the point to criticize Obama for not following the lead of Russia (a fairly awful government) in contemplating preemptive nuclear strikes, or, to praise him for not following the lead of Russia? josh bornstein(Quote)
obi juan says:
Isn’t Russia just following our lead? obi juan(Quote)
bgates says:
Josh, the point is that Russia’s fairly awful government doesn’t want to curry favor with Obama, even after Hillary gave them that nice button with the wrong word on it and Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize preemptively, so maybe Obama is courting disaster with his “the real enemy isn’t Iran’s nuclear program, or North Korea’s, or a resurgent Russia or Taliban; the real enemy is cynicism — and Glenn Beck” routine. bgates(Quote)
Dave N says:
Besides, Russia goes out of its way to embarrass the Secretary of State while she is in Moscow. And I thought that everyone on the world stage wanted to hold hands and sing Kumbaya now that Barack Obama is in the White House and that evil saber rattling George W. Bush is gone.
I guess Vladmir Putin didn’t get the memo. Dave N(Quote)
Northern Dave says:
“With Obama comes a promise to listen and to talk. And nine months on, it is patently obvious that he is well-meaning, sincere, intelligent, articulate and indeed, a President the people of the United States of America can be proud to have. Being intelligent, he knows he was elected by the people of the USA, not the rest of the world and he knows that his mandate starts and stops at his shores.
And it is due to his low-key, diligent, respectful, polite and engaged attitude that he has deservedly been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, not necessarily for what he has done but for what he promises to do. The first sign was the declaration that the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay would be decommissioned, the second was the abandoning of the idiotic Missile Defence Shield (as if North Korea would fire a missile westwards over Asia, Europe and the Atlantic, when a salvo eastwards would blitz the West Coast). ”
A quote from http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/109803–1/
It appears the Russians love Obama (they are less than fond of Mrs. Clinton apparently)........ Northern Dave(Quote)
DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Two Views of Preemptive War says:
Oren says:
Preemptive nuclear war is a sign of military weakness. Moscow has all but admitted that their atrophied conventional forces are unable to carry out a mission of force projection at a faraway small country.
This is fantastic news. Oren(Quote)
Wfjag says:
NYT crossword puzzle clue: “A five letter word beginning with ’ O ’ meaning ‘naive’”. Wfjag(Quote)
Mark Field says:
I’m confused by the terminology here. As I understand it, “preemptive war” occurs when a country reasonably believes that attack by another country is imminent. AFAIK, this is generally considered self-defense and most countries accept it.
What was controversial about Bush was the apparent embrace of “preventive war”. This, as I understand it, meant that the threat from the other country didn’t have to be imminent, it could merely be potential. AFAIK, no other country in the world accepts that doctrine.
Assuming I’ve understood this correctly, there’s nothing controversial in Russia’s position except the reference to nuclear weapons. Mark Field(Quote)
Scott Lazarowitz says:
You refer to the Washington Times article quoting Patrushev as stating,“options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded.”
How do you have a “preventative” strike on someone who has already “aggressed?” A strike on an “aggressor” would have to be retaliatory, not preventive. Therefore, “preventive” strikes would be on someone the striker anticipates to act aggressively, making the preventive striker the actual aggressor, like the US striking Iraq in 2003.
But that quote comes from a Russian government official, making it no more surprising if it were from an American government official. Scott Lazarowitz(Quote)
Roger says:
What Bush doctrine? Pres. Obama has escalated the Afghan war by ordering new preemptive strikes. Obama is just as much in favor of preemptive millitary strikes as Bush ever was. Roger(Quote)
Oren says:
It is grammatically impossible to strike preemptively in a war that’s been going on for 8 years. Oren(Quote)
Federal Dog says:
“It appears the Russians love Obama”
It appears that you do not understand the history and function of Pravda. Federal Dog(Quote)
SuperSkeptic says:
I’m with Oren. Good news here. (And, don’t think we wouldn’t, either...) SuperSkeptic(Quote)
Bama 1L says:
Actually, they’ve been admitting for years they are unable to defend their own country’s borders against conventionally-armed neighbors. They would have to go straight to nukes in the case of almost any conceivable war. Bama 1L(Quote)
Roger says:
Iraq invaded our Kuwait oil supplies in 1990, and the USA has had military strikes against Iraq ever since. Which of those military strikes were preemptive? Roger(Quote)
Randy says:
“Actually, they’ve been admitting for years they are unable to defend their own country’s borders against conventionally-armed neighbors. They would have to go straight to nukes in the case of almost any conceivable war.”
But they haven’t used nuclear weapons in Chechnya or other border country disputes. Randy(Quote)
NickM says:
Randy — fallout’s a bitch.
Nick NickM(Quote)
Dennis N says:
Bama 1L:
This was pretty much NATO’s position from the 60s to the fall of the USSR. There was no way for NATO, with their politically acceptable troop levels, to counter Moscow’s rain of divisions. We would go nuclear early, rather than late.
So, yes, I agree with Oren. Russia’s inability to fill all its tanks has been known for a long time. As long as they are thinking defensively, I’m not so worried. We have no offensive intentions. Indeed, we do not have offensive capabilities at the scale required. Dennis N(Quote)
wfjag says:
Not true. The effects of using tactical nuclear weapons on lowering the threshold for a strategic nuclear exchanged was wargamed hundreds of times. The outcome: 100% of the time the use of tactical nukes led to escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. The longest time for this to occur was 4 hours from the first use of tactical nukes (which ever side first used the tactical nukes, and whether the first use was in Europe or a peripheral theatre).
The true implicit threat of the French nuclear arsenal is that any attack on France would be met with a nuclear response, and so would trigger WW III.
There is no reason to conclude that the leaders of the USSR did not reach the same conclusions. Accordingly, all concerned avoided approaching the threshold for use of nuclear weapons after they realized how close they had come to blundering into doing so during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Any lowering of the restraints on first use of nuclear weapons is a major increase in the danger level. Unless you assume that the Russians are suicidal or recklessly stupid, there is likely another reason for the statement. Russian political and military leaders have very seldom made rash statements. Rather, the third and fourth level effects of provocative statements have been well thought out. Their apparent assessment of the strength of the US’s leadership appears warranted. wfjag(Quote)
Dennis N says:
This may be true, and NATO policy may be schizophrenic, but you don’t issue nuclear weapons for 155 guns unless you, at some level of fantasy perhaps, intend to use them. The reason they were deployed was that, without nuclear weapons, we were toast in the WarPac’s breakfast. I don’t think that’s changed.
The message to Moscow is that, if you cross the wire, Armageddon happens. Is that the message Moscow is sending now? We don’t even have any wirecutters deployed. (only exaggerating a little.)
During the Cold War, the Russians were the best enemy we’ve ever had, and we, theirs. We both knew the rules, and played by them. Both of us knew we couldn’t win the big war, so we both made damn sure we never had one. Dennis N(Quote)
jnheath says:
You might glance at _Martin v. Mott_, where (if I recall correctly) the Court discussed the President calling up the militia in anticipation of an invasion, in reference to arguments over the Constitution giving him the authority to call only in case of invasion.
I think the Iraq strategy looked farther ahead and was very indirect, yet preventative. It now seems to have resulted in Sunnis blowing up Iranian officers, whereas 8 years ago we expected bombs in the US from a unified Islamic front. It also produced a situation where the US military is operating freely in a place where terrorists are coming to them to fight with rifles, rather than the US trying to hunt invisible cells in North America. Interesting results. The strategy risks dangerous de-stabilization of other regions, but successfully chose the battle ground, got the enemy to meet us there, and produced striking divisions among the enemy. The enemy are blowing up mosques over there rather than subway stations over here. Shows the rest of the Moslem world what “heroes” these guys are after all. jnheath(Quote)