Global Test for Preemptive Military Action by the U.S.

In the first Presidential debate John Kerry was trying to explain that he would, under the suitable conditions, use military force preemptively. Of course, Kerry being Kerry, he had to insert some pointless qualification into his list of conditions so as to create an verbal escape hatch to be used at a later date: Kerry also required that the preemptive force being consider had to pass some "global test".

Bush, marveling at Kerry's prehensile weasel wording, said:

…I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.

This "global test" is currently undefined because—similarly to a UFO—nobody in their right mind had ever seen such a "global test" before. I suspect that this “global test” is anything that Kerry wants to make it. I think Karen Burke’s scathing remarks said it best:

What 45 percent of Americans didn't read into this confident nonsense is that John Kerry's most prominent intention is to turn the United States into the World's whore. His entire constitution was revealed in this statement, ''No president through all of American history has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test.'' So there you have it, security moms. If the Arab street or the European Union doesn't want your president to fight for your protection, you're on your own!

Yup, I agree. If John Kerry were President then Saddam would be brewing his WMDs in peace today.

Oh by the way, someone emailed Glen with a copy of the “global test”:

Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.

1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?

I think all that is required to fail the “global test” a “yes” to any of the above questions.

Now back in Sept 17^th, 2002 on MSNBS’s Hardball Kerry stated that the president can act unilaterally to remove Saddam, but for the purposes of campaigning he has indicated than the UN is more important that the U.S. If we go by his campaign rhetoric it is clear that Iraq would not pass the above test.

All fun aside, this is actually a significant event: Kerry just grabbed his equivalent of the “what if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered?” third rail.

This was the question was asked by of Michael Dukakis by Bernard Shaw during the 1988 presidential debates. Bernard Shaw’s intent was to probe the full extent of Michael Dukakis’ anti-capital punishment commitment by postulating a personal tragedy for Mike Dukakis: the rape and murder of his wife.

Mike Dukakis—by sticking to his principles recited his personal opposition to the death penalty—transformed himself, on live TV and in front of a national audience, into the defense attorney for his wife’s rapist and murderer.

This was fatal for Mike Dukakis. A significant number of Dukakis-leaning voters were creeped-out when they realized they could rely on Mike Dukakis to avenge them just as much as Kitty Dukakis could; which is to say, not at all. Furthermore, this revelation created concerns about what other undiscovered eeriness lurked with Mike Dukakis.

John Kerry has just done a Mike Dukakis. John Kerry has just clearly stated that any international threat to the U.S. can purchase immunity from our use of preemptive force by just being an excellent trading partner with one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Saddam bet the farm that France’s UNSC veto would protect him from one division of U.S. Marines.

If John Kerry were president then Saddam would still have his farm.

The obvious difference between Mike Dukakis’s gaffe and John Kerry’s gaffe was that everybody instantly knew that something big had happened when Mike Dukakis answered and—since Kerry’s gaffe was buried deep in one of his sentence’s clauses—people didn’t immediately recognized it’s significance.

Public awareness of the implications of Kerry’s attitude is now emerging. It’s now up to the Bush campaign to ensure that Kerry doesn’t live this down.