McCain-Palin's Tough Talk Nothing New

“No president should ever hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect ourselves when we are attacked, and to also protect our vital interests when they are imminently threatened.” These words are not from John McCain or George W. Bush. They were said by Barack Obama on April 24, 2007 when he was speaking at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

“Imminently threatened” is just a rewording to give the green light to “strike first,” which is improperly translated as preventive war. But apart from the linguistic distinctions (actually essential, since preemption differs from prevention), the statement of the Democratic candidate allows us to analyze VP candidate Sarah Palin’s interview with the ABC network from a different point of view.

Some of her statements caused a sensation, actually more here overseas, than in the United States. The first regards the Bush Doctrine; the second regards relations with Russia.

The interviewer, the good but soft Charles Gibson, asked Palin if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Due to her reluctance (or incapacity) to answer, Gibson summarized the Bush Doctrine: the right of the U.S. to attack an enemy before it attacks them. It’s a simplification that doesn’t consider the complexity of the document signed in September 2002 by National Security Strategy; it certainly can’t be reduced only to preventive war.

In fact, the right to “strike first” was not invented by Bush. It has always been an element of security doctrine in the United States and was created by John Quincy Adams. Since its foundation, the United States linked territorial expansion to security. Through actions of preemption, they obtained large regions dominated by Indian tribes or colonial settings, but also territories from “failed” countries that, by being weak, represented a constant threat to the Union’s stability.

In 1898, the United States launched a preventive attack to conquer the Philippines in order to avoid the expansionist aims of Germany and Japan who were a threat to Spain’s authority on the territory. As Princeton political scientist John Ikenberry noticed, “Every American action of power in after-war is the result of preemption.”

When Obama talks about “imminent threats” and about the duty of protecting the nation he refers, either consciously or not, to this tradition. And so did Sarah Palin last Thursday, in her answer to Gibson: “If our intelligence gives us enough and legitimate information about an imminent attack against America, we have the right to defend our country. In fact, our President must” protect the nation.

The problem – as the Iraq War in 2003 emphasized – is the credibility of the U.S. intelligence agencies’ sources. But this is not the root of Palin’s answer. However cynical and hawkish she may appear due to the Iraq wound still being open, she does have solid reasons to speak like that.

Another discordance is that Palin would be ready to declare war on Russia. Of course McCain has a stricter position than Bush where Moscow is concerned. Sarah Palin explained to Gibson that, “If you are a NATO member and another country is under attack, you must respond and help” – a sentence with a double hypothetical, but flawless on the level of International Law and on the logic level. Because according to NATO Article 5 itself, an attack against any member of the Atlantic Alliance must be considered an attack on all. NATO called on this code, for the first time in its history, after 9/11.

Palin (and McCain) approve of the entry of Ukraine and Georgia into the Atlantic Alliance. It is obvious that if Georgia had been a NATO member at the moment of the Russian invasion, Article 5 could have been applied. It would be incorrect to jump to the conclusion that Palin is ready to declare war on Russia, as a lot of news outlets hurriedly titled. Instead, what deserves to be mentioned is that McCain and Palin’s point of view on Russia is stricter than the one of the current resident of the White House.

In fact, Palin said to Gibson that measures such as economic sanctions should be considered to make sure Russia calms down, especially when it uses its size (to be read “army”) against smaller Democratic countries. And in a hypothetical (although not impossible) escalation and under certain conditions, the McCain presidency doesn’t exclude the use of power.