Bellicose Presidential Candidates Gone Wild!

In a time of war and apprehension, it is natural that presidential candidates should seek to impress upon the public the idea that they will be leaders who will keep the country safe. Since a good offense can sometimes beat a good, bad, or mediocre defense, it also makes sense that some candidates should promise safety through uncompromising aggression against America's enemies. In the past week, though, it seems like several candidates have gone off the deep end in their attempts to present themselves as being "tough on terror."

Exhibit A: Barack Obama has threatened to use the military option to go after al-Qaeda in Pakistan even without the support of Pakistan's government. He has also threatened to cut off aid to Pakistan if the Pakistanis do not provide better assistance against al-Qaeda in their country. Obviously, it is very disappointing that Pakistan likely is where some of the al-Qaeda leadership is hanging out and that there seems to be nothing that can be done about the situation because the central government of Pakistan simply does not exert enough control in Waziristan and other tribal areas to launch an extensive manhunt in those areas. Obama's frustration is understandable. However, even if we suppose that the United States can take out al-Qaeda in Pakistan, perhaps even Osama bin Laden finally, I suspect that using the military option would ultimately lead to bad outcomes for all. It's never a good thing to prop up weak governments with foreign aid as the United States has a long history of doing, but this process makes sense in Pakistan, where a change in government could easily lead to terrorists or those sympathetic to terrorists controlling a nuclear nation. A foreign invasion, even if only very specific targets were attacked by the United States, would weaken an already weak government further. It would certainly be counter-productive to destroy one group of terrorists while at the same time helping another set of terrorists rise to power.

Exhibit B: Tom Tancredo has stated multiple times that he believes a proper response to a major terrorist attack against America would be to nuke Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. This is tantamount to a declaration of war on Islam as an entity -- instead of a war on terror, we would have a war on a religion practiced by a billion people worldwide. Indeed, there are many Muslims who are American citizens and have made or plan to make the required pilgrimage to the holy cities of their religion; Tancredo wants to represent these people, and all American citizens, but he is willing to use Americans' holy places as political pawns because the faith of many Americans is also the primary faith of terrorists. The nuclear destruction of Mecca and Medina is something that could never be forgotten in our lifetimes; it would create ill-will against the United States that would last as long as Islam endures as a faith. It would surely create terrorism for generations rather than squelch it; just the threat alone may spark more terrorism because it suggests America is as against Islam as terrorist propaganda claims. Perhaps Tancredo is right to think that the threat of nuclear attack could dissuade terrorists just as it can deter aggressive nations, but the trouble is terrorists can act in small groups or even as individuals even more easily than they can as members of large networks like al-Qaeda -- all it would take is one determined, small group of people or, perhaps, just one person to make America either reveal its threat to be empty or bring about a nuclear nightmare.

Exhibit C: Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton wants to have the option to use nuclear weapons against terrorists wherever they may be. Clinton's tactic of the moment is to present Obama as inexperienced and clueless when it comes to foreign policy, so she is hoping people will believe Obama has violated some golden rule of foreign policy which declares that the nuclear option should never be taken off the table because it makes a good deterrent. Deterrence is good, but is it really unacceptable in foreign policy to be honest and to try not to appear to be a lunatic? In practice, using nuclear weapons on terrorists would simultaneously kill ten or a hundred terrorists as well as thousands of citizens of some country we are not at war with. Obviously, the war situation could change, especially in nuclear Pakistan, but if one is just considering the state of the world as it is I think it is quite reasonable to say that a nuclear strike on terrorists is not immanent. The most effective deterrent is surely the threat of a military action that might actually be engaged upon; threatening monstrous actions is only effective if we are monsters.

All three examples I've mentioned have a common thread: each candidate has essentially threatened military action against an ally. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have perhaps not been the greatest allies America has ever had, but it is a fact that the United States is not at war with either nation. I am disturbed at the notion that because terrorists do not belong to any nation the sovereignty of nations can be violated at will if terrorists happen to be residing in those nations. Terrorists are lawless, but nations have a responsibility to abide by their agreements and treaties. Yes, abiding by treaties may make fighting terrorism more difficult, but not abiding by treaties makes it more difficult to maintain friendly relationships and trading partnerships with other nations. The path that might lead to more dead terrorists in the short run could very well also lead to global instability and war in the long run.