What Would Chairman Mao Say?

As U. S. Presidential debates go, the first one between Kerry and Bush was fairly substantial. Both candidates raised issues and both occasionally scored debating points. There were few, if any, ad hominem attacks and both men came across as reasonable, well-meaning individuals. Both men also missed opportunities to score debating points. As far as declaring a winner, there can be no doubt that Kerry got the best of his opponent. Most polls seemed to confirm that view, as did the observors at Fox News. That should say something about the objectivity of the findings.

Disappointment among Bush supporters went right to the top of the intellectual pecking order this time. According Jay Nordlinger, Managing Editor of National Review:

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember — talk about repetition! — I concede this as someone who loves the man.

Andrew Sullivan was slightly less critical of Bush but nevertheless felt compelled to conclude his October 1st blog with these words:

Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn't seem in control of his job, a man who couldn't and didn't defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was "hard work," who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled.

Most bloggers that support Bush called the debate a draw; most Kerry bloggers gave their man the edge. As far as I know, no one mentioned the fact that neither candidate dealt with the key issue pertaining to the war in Iraq, the question of pre-emptive military strikes.

When Kerry was asked if he accepted the idea of pre-emptive war, he responded in the affirmative. But he did not elaborate the point except to say something about "protecting American interests". He seemed to be parroting Bush, accepting Bush's definition. Neither candidate raised the core question: what is the underlying principle of pre-emptive military strikes?

Clearly, each candidate has a different understanding of this term. Bush takes the position that the U.S. has the right to strike out militarily to protect what it perceives to be "American interests", even when there is no clear threat -- even when there is only a threat of a threat. It would be a bit like attacking the Netherlands because the International Criminal Court in The Hague (which Bush opposes) could conceivably, someday, possibly, perhaps ... capture and put on trial American citizens accused of committing war crimes. The mere existence of the court could be perceived as intrinsically threatening to Bush and, based on his Iraqi invasion rationale, the U.S. could simply carpet bomb the Dutch seat of government and reduce the Court to rubble. Shock and awe politics!

When it comes to unilateral military action, the Bush administration does not intend to honor its commitment to the U.N. Charter and the rule of international law. The rationale behind this position is, quite simply, the principle that might is right.

Kerry's position – although he did not explain it clearly – is based on the principle of self-defense. This principle is enshrined in the U.N. Charter. This Charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, recognizes the right of a state to retaliate when attacked, as the U.S. did against Afghanistan when it became clear that the organizers of 9/11 were under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The principle of self-defense also extends to threats of attack in cases where there is convincing evidence of an imminent attack. But it does not extend to the arbitrary use of military power to "get rid of bad guys", pursue state interests, safeguard oil reserves that belong to someone else, occupy lands that belong to someone else, help allies occupy lands that belong to someone else or tilt at wind mills.

The difference between the positions of Bush and Kerry is the difference between military aggression and self-defense. While Kerry wants to play by accepted international rules, Bush is ready to wing it and, it would seem, "shoot first and ask questions later."

What Bush and his supporters seem to forget is that if one nation can justify attacking other nations on any pretence other than self-defense, any other nation could do the same. If the U.S. can employ the principle of arbitrary military strikes to enforce its foreign policy, as it did in Iraq, what is to stop China or any other nation from deciding to take pre-emptive military action against the United States or some other nation? It's a principle that could fit the India-Pakistan border dispute like a glove, to mention the most obvious case. The Bush foreign policy doctrine seems to be: nuke your enemy before your enemy nukes you.

This very succinct analysis of pre-emptive war, written by Paul Schroeder, an extract from an article that appeared in American Conservative, Vol. 1, No. 2 (October 21, 2002), pp. 8–20, provides some historical context about the notion of pre-emptive war.

Also see The Folly of Pre-emptive War.

In resurrecting the principle of military aggression from now-defunct communist wars of liberation and the fascist "Lebensraum" excuse to seize land belonging to others, the Bush administration is sending a dangerous message to the world: don't count on the rule of law to settle differences -- political power comes from the barrel of a gun!

And yes -- that's what Chairman Mao would say.