US defense secretary expands pre-emptive war doctrine to include nuclear strikes
30 October 2008
In a remarkable speech on nuclear policy delivered October 28 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), US Defense Secretary Robert Gates painted a dire portrait of international affairs and argued that Washington should expand the doctrine of pre-emptive war formulated by the Bush administration to include possible nuclear strikes.
It is widely rumored that, in the likely event that Democrat Barack Obama wins next week’s US presidential election, Obama will keep Gates as defense secretary. Gates’ speech, given in the waning days of the Bush presidency, has the character of a policy declaration of the next US administration.
Gates began by making extended and ominous parallels between the world situation today and that which prevailed at the founding of the Carnegie Institute in 1910, four years before the outbreak of World War I. At the time, he noted, Wall Street was passing through the panic of 1910-1911 and facing a credit crisis, the US had recently put down an insurgency in the Philippines at a cost of 4,200 American lives, comparable to today’s US death toll in Iraq, and “Europe was arming itself to the teeth and forming a series of alliances whose implications were obvious to anyone who cared to look.”
Gates argued that the pacifist illusions promoted by CEIP founder Andrew Carnegie—a US steel magnate at the turn of the 20th century, most famous in the working class movement for the brutal suppression of the 1892 Homestead strike against his company—— should not deter Washington from planning broader war.
He noted, “In August of 1913, Carnegie said that ‘the only measure required today for the maintenance of world peace is an agreement between three or four of the leading civilized powers… pledged to cooperate against disturbers of world peace.'” Gates pointed out that, writing four years later to President Woodrow Wilson, who had been elected in 1916 on a platform of keeping the US out of the world war, “the same Andrew Carnegie encouraged the president in the strongest terms to declare war, because, he wrote, ‘There is only one straight way of settlement.'”
Turning to US nuclear policy, Gates said, “As long as others have nuclear weapons, we must maintain some level of these weapons ourselves: to deter potential adversaries, and to reassure over two dozen allies and partners who rely on our nuclear umbrella for their security—making it unnecessary for them to develop their own.”
This comment gives a sense of the highly tense and unstable character of international relations, and the paranoia of US officials. Gates’ fears about the spread of nuclear weapons are not limited to existing programs of “potential adversaries,” among which Gates included “rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, or Russian or Chinese strategic modernization programs.” His fears extend to the nuclear policy of all states, including current US allies.
Gates later repeated this point: “We simply cannot predict the future. […] our adversaries and other nations will always seek whatever advantages they can find. Knowing that, we have to be prepared for contingencies we haven’t even considered.”
Gates’ list of US-friendly states that have chosen not to develop nuclear weapons was significant: South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and Libya. Two of the most obvious such countries—ex-World War II enemies Japan and Germany—were not included. Gates did not explain what political factors induced him to omit them.
Gates then issued a remarkable threat: “As long as other states have or seek nuclear weapons—and can potentially threaten us, our allies and friends—then we must have a deterrent capacity that makes it clear that challenging the US in the nuclear arena—or with other weapons of mass destruction—could result in an overwhelming, catastrophic response.
“According to Gates, the US must be able to credibly threaten a nuclear holocaust against any state that “challenges” the US in the nuclear arena or with other “weapons of mass destruction.” By his own words, such a challenge does not require a nation to threaten to attack the US. It does not even require that a nation possess nuclear weapons or other WMD. It is enough for a nation merely to “seek” such weapons for it to become a potential target for a preemptive “overwhelming, catastrophic response” from the United States.
Talking about war: Advocate of Afghan “troop surge” selected as head of British Army: here.