Obama offers a new definition of "aggression" against the U.S. and a new war doctrine to go with it.

[Better Believe It]

The 0% Doctrine: Obama Breaks New Ground When It Comes to War with Iran
by Tom Engelhardt
March 12, 2012

The president had offered a new definition of “aggression” against this country and a new war doctrine to go with it. He would, he insisted, take the U.S. to war not to stop another nation from attacking us or even threatening to do so, but simply to stop it from building a nuclear weapon -- and he would act even if that country were incapable of targeting the United States. That should have been news.

Consider the most startling of his statements: just before the arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, the president gave a 45-minute Oval Office interview to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. A prominent pro-Israeli writer, Goldberg had produced an article in the September issue of that magazine headlined “The Point of No Return.” In it, based on interviews with "roughly 40 current and past Israeli decision makers about a military strike," he had given an Israeli air attack on Iran a 50% chance of happening by this July. From the recent interview, here are Obama’s key lines:

“I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”

Later, he added this chilling note: “I think it's fair to say that the last three years, I've shown myself pretty clearly willing, when I believe it is in the core national interest of the United States, to direct military actions, even when they entail enormous risks.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175514/tomgram%3A_engelhardt%2C_war_as_the_president%27s_private_preserve/


Excerpt from Obama’s AIPAC speech
March 4, 2012

“And for this reason, as part of my solemn obligation to the American people, I will only use force when the time and circumstances demand it... We all prefer to resolve this issue diplomatically. Having said that, Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States -- just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs. I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of American power... and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency.

“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73588.html

[hifiguy]

1. Kick and rec

[xchrom]

2. Du rec. Nt

[Better Believe It]

4. I don't think President Obama is a wacko. He's intelligent and hardly a great peacemaker.

And while he is a warrior, Obama certainly isn't a "warrior for the working class" as he described himself.

[gratuitous]

7. I don't think he's a right-wing whacko

But these kinds of statements surely don't evince an understanding or respect for the Constitution. What's most bothersome to me is when Obama has acted in the past on statements like this, the same scolds who say "He didn't mean it THAT way!" are the first ones to scold that "You weren't paying attention!" when it turns out he really did mean it that way.

Words matter. Actions matter even more.

[TheKentuckian]

8. I don't think he is a wacko, he seems fairly sane for a righty.

[SammyWinstonJack]

16. +1.

[bvar22]

5. Ahh... The Luxury and Arrogance of MILITARY EMPIRE!

"We doan need no stinkin bahdges!"


....meanwhile, back home in The Empire,
Infrastructure is crumbling, and
Social Programs, Schools, The New Deal, and the Great Society are being dismantled and sold off to pay for it all.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Yep. The DoD says we've been spending 2 billion a week in Afghanistan

Obama has been President now for about 163 weeks.

We're blowing up schools over there, so we won't have the cash to build them up here. Some Democrat.

[Vincardog]

10. Exactly. We are REQUIRED to support BO because he had a "D" after his title, even when he makes

illegal power grabs and threatens to take us to ANOTHER illegal war.

I do not give a fuck what any pet lawyer or sycophantic enabler says these are not the statements of a democratic leader.

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. "REQUIRED"?

I'll bet most actual "D"s feel exactly as I do, and would prefer not have your alleged "support". I don't think we really "give a fuck".

[Vincardog]

15. If your "actual 'D'" actually believe that it is OK to go to war over imagined programs that

do not present any real threat, Don't worry I will not support you.
I will in fact do everything in my power to prevent the adoption of the policies you propose.
I prefer to live in a civilized country with a future not in the last gasp of a failed empire.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. You go for it! And if anybody "REQUIRES" you to vote against your principles, you have my....

permission to tell 'em to go straight to hell. That is the funniest damned thing I think I've read here in quite some time. If every adult were actually "REQUIRED" to vote, we'd have half the country in non-compliance.

You tell 'em TD said you don't have to vote for a "D". EVER!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "Bring it on!" "Smoke 'em out!" All that's missing is the cowboy boots.

[libtodeath]

11. What the?

[great white snark]

12. WOW, scary Obama posturing. Damn him for being Presidential.

Just like Bush...except in now way.

Thanks for the OP though it is very, very professional. Very.

[Better Believe It]

13. And "being Presidential" means ......?

[blue neen]

18. Does the author offer suggestions as to what the U.S. should do if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

I was reading pretty quickly and may have missed Mr. Engelhardt's advice.

[Better Believe It]

19. The U.S. should do the same thing they do in reaction to Israel's nuclear weapons. Nothing!

Or urge/pressure Israel to reduce their nuclear arsenal to the level of Iran's .... 1 .... if and when Iran develops a nuclear bomb.

Or the administration could encourage Israel to destroy their arsenal and sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That in turn could help end any "nuclear arms race' in the middle east.

If the U.S. government won't even acknowledge Israel's huge nuclear arsenal, much less demand they dismantle it, why should any other middle east nations agree to U.S. demands that they not develop such weapons?

[blue neen]

20. A quote from the article:

"If, however -- and it’s a giant if -- Iran actually got the bomb, if a 10th country joined the nuclear club (with others to follow), it would be bad news, and the world would be a worse place for it, but not necessarily that greatly changed."

Mr. Engelhardt is acknowledging that it would be a bad thing if Iran got nuclear weapons. He spent an entire editorial criticizing President Obama's policy, but offered no suggestions of his own.

IMHO, Mr. Engelhardt needs to establish want he would do if he was the President, otherwise he's just writing a hit piece.

[Better Believe It]

26. Perhaps he's afraid to challenge Israel's nuclear weapons stockpile. Few U.S. journalists and ....

politicians are willing to demonstrate such public frankness and courage.

How can one honestly oppose Iran's possible development of a nuclear bomb while supporting Israel's huge nuclear weapons arsenal?

[blue neen]

27. Mr. Engelhardt was willing to write an editorial criticizing President Obama.

Why wouldn't Mr. Engelhardt be willing to give readers his own opinions on better options for the President?

To make this article legit, he would need to do both.

Negative criticism points out problems but offers no solutions.

[Better Believe It]

28. I've offered a solution. Do nothing. Just like with Israel. What do you think about it?

[blue neen]

29. I respect your opinion, however it is not Mr. Engelhardt's.

He is the one who wrote the negative criticism, the editorial with no solutions.

What do I think about it? That's a good question...I don't have a concrete answer. The foreign policy relating to that region of the world is so complex, that it boggles the mind.

That's why I read the article...to get more educated about this particular problem. Unfortunately, Mr. Engelhardt's piece did not offer education on both sides of the issue.

[Luminous Animal]

30. I think you are misreading Engelhardt...

It's not a bad thing specific to Iran. It is a bad thing because it is an expansion of the world's nuclear arsenal.

[white_wolf]

21. Considering the fact that the U.S. is the only country to ever use nuclear weapons...

they really have no room to call other nations dangerous.

[blue neen]

23. Please show me where the author offered his solution.

Thank you.

[white_wolf]

24. The U.S. should do nothing.

U.S. imperialism in the Middle-East has only caused problems for the people of both America and the Middle-East. The U.S. needs to get out and stay out. As to the issue of nuclear weapons, the hypocrisy of the U.S. is ridiculous. Once again, the only nation that has used nuclear weapons has no room to tell any other nation what to do.

[blue neen]

25. You are stating your opinion. Please show me where the author offers his solutions.

Thank you.

[Luminous Animal]

31. The author doesn't need to offer a solution because he isn't proposing that

that it is a bad thing specific to Iran. The bad thing is that yet another country may contribute to the world's nuclear weapon stockpile. Engelhardt has been, for many years, an advocate for 100% nuclear weapon disarmament. That is why he also states that even if Iran developed nuclear weapons the world would not be greatly changed.

[blue neen]

32. Negative criticisms only point out problems, not solutions.

A productive and constructive criticism was indeed, possible. He just chose not to do it.

What would Engelhardt do if he was the President? It is good to be able to advocate for 100% nuclear weapon disarmament. It's a different story altogether when faced with problems about nuclear weapons that already exist or that could be in development.

DU'ers continue to post articles that are counter-productive to President Obama's re-election campaign. If they are not offering to solve problems, then they are not being helpful. So, what's the purpose?

A lot of times I'm on DU for the education. I've learned so much that it's amazing.

During election season, I'm here to advocate for Democrats.

[sudopod]

33. I don't have to find something more entertaining for Bubba to do

before I tell him that jumping his dump truck off a 10 foot tall dirt ramp is probably a bad idea.

"No, I won't hold your beer. This is a bad idea."

On edit: I mean, you realize that stopping a war that would kill at minimum a few hundred thousand people has a somewhat higher priority than potentially giving the Republicans a campaign issue to grouse about, right?

[Luminous Animal]

36. Aw, c'mon how can you possibly equate the lives of hundreds of thousands of Muslim foreigners

with the importance of the election prospects of one good Christian American. I mean, heavens! Malia & Sasha might have to change schools and they've barely settled in!

[sudopod]

37. srsly! :/ nt

[blue neen]

41. I'm sure you don't mean to imply something that I never said.

Also, I know you could do better than mock the President's children.

I simply asked many times in this thread what options Mr. Engelhardt proposed for the President.

Please point out his suggestions in this editorial.

A hit piece is an attempt to change public opinion through the appearance of objective reporting or editorializing. Until Mr. Engelhardt wants to deal with the problems we have in front of us and tell us what the REAL TIME solutions are, then IMHO he is writing hit pieces.

100% Nuclear Disarmament would be the best thing that could ever happen--it's just does not happen to be the state of the world that we are presently living in.

[sudopod]

42. Ok, Mr. "I don't want to kill millions of people."

How do you propose to solve this problem?

*hands on hips, taps toe*

Stop being such a Debbie Downer!

[blue neen]

43. Ah, that would be Mrs. to you.

I don't pretend to know the solution to the problem. I'm just still waiting to hear Mr. Engelhardt's. He's the one who wrote the editorial.

I'm glad that you enjoy tap dancing. It's good exercise. It'll help you get out those frustrations so you don't have to stoop to calling people ridiculous names.


on edit: Post 44 was a dupe.

[sudopod]

45. tap dancing?

wat?

[blue neen]

40. I'm sorry. I don't know who Bubba is. I also happen to despise beer.

I mean, you realize that you are implying something I didn't say.

I simply want to know Mr. Engelhardt would do if he was in the President's shoes right now.

How would he stop a war? How would he do that right now? If he can't give us those solutions, then what is the point of posting this article?

If he showed us some ideas, let's hear them.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I want to know what Mr. Engelhardt proposes.

[Luminous Animal]

34. Engelhardt's solution is 100% disarmament for ALL countries.

Engelhardt doesn't believe that a nuclear Iran is any more or less destabilizing and dangerous than a nuclear USA. What he would do is NOT attack Iran and let them develop nuclear weapons if that is what they are wont to do.

But you are right, as we move into election season people need to heed the advice of Rumsfeld and Fletcher and be very careful and watch what we say and what we do. Better quietly sit back and let our leaders destroy another country, murder and displace their citizens than do anything to interfere with Obama's re-election campaign.

[Justice wanted]

22. ...

It is clear the warmongering Military Corporations have control of BOTH parties.


Going by Obama's definition WE are going to war with HALF the World.


This is unacceptable. This doesn't protect anything but Corp pocket books.

[rudycantfail]

35. It's pure neocon

yet his followers think he's being thoughtful and pragmatic.

[Amonester]

38. Iran isn't developping a nuclear weapon.

They already do know it's not worth the 'risk' of getting carbonized overnight.

Their real leader isn't that stupid.

[Amonester]

39. I believe it was to kind of "calm down" a few paranoid Israeli neocons.

He already knows Iran's "supreme leader" has ordered to suspend any such 'development' (if any) already, but the extreme right-wingers in Israel's gov. (not a majority of Israel's people) want to attack anyway before November (which would be disastrous to oil prices and perhaps endanger the President's re-election).

[woo me with science]

46. K&R Wake up, America.

Thank you for this important thread.