The Command Post - Op-Ed - Have you heard about the Global Test yet?

October 01, 2004

Have you heard about the Global Test yet?

As expected, misconstruing John Kerry's remark from the 9/30 debate about a "Global Test" is the main GOP talking point. Here's what Kerry said last night:

Kerry: No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and 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 where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations...

Bush: ...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...

So, Kerry is saying that if we preemptively strike, we need to first make sure that we can justify our strike to the world.

Does that mean that Kerry would not preemptively strike if France were opposed to the strike? No, he says specifically that he would not.

He's saying that we shouldn't preemptively strike if we can't prove that it was the right thing to do, and gives Colin Powell having to apologize for his speech as a counterexample.

Is that really so hard for Bush to understand? Shouldn't we care about world opinion and our own credibility? Or, does Bush not care if America's credibility around the world is reduced? Should America be known as the country that fibs?

Bush misrepresents Kerry's point in today's speech in Allentown, PA:

"One other point I want to make about the debate last night. Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government. Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The president's job is not to take an international poll. The president's job is to defend America."

The president has many jobs, two of which are defending America and making sure that we look good around the world.

From March 19, 2004, here's something that caring about America's credibility could have prevented:

WARSAW President Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland said Thursday that he had been "deceived" by information on weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war and that Poland might pull some troops out of Iraq earlier than planned...

UPDATE: A related lesson could be learned from the NYT's "How the White House Embraced Disputed Iraqi Arms Intelligence":

In 2002, at a crucial juncture on the path to war, senior members of the Bush administration gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted that Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program...
Ms. Rice's alarming description on CNN was in keeping with the administration's overall treatment of the tubes. Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, The Times found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public...
"It is most disturbing that Winpac is essentially directing foreign policy in this matter," one Energy Department official wrote in an e-mail message. "There are some very strong points to be made in respect to Iraq's arrogant noncompliance with U.N. sanctions. However, when individuals attempt to convert those 'strong statements' into the 'knock out' punch, the Administration will ultimately look foolish - i.e., the tubes and Niger!"

Posted By The Lonewacko Blog at October 1, 2004 05:20 PM | TrackBack

Comments

"and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

In Kerry-speak, that basically means making sure it passes muster with the UN and the Security Council.

Why should we have to "prove" the legitimacy of our actions, to those in whose eyes everything we do is illegitimate? Hell, we could stand here and say "Two plus two is four", and we'll still have nations out there screaming "Die, infidel scum!" That, or "Capitalist swine, we speet on you!"

Posted by: gus3 at October 1, 2004 07:19 PM

So proof is required. Sigh...

That means since intelligence is rarely 100% no pre-emptive action is possible. Iran, North Korea, Syria can sleep easy.

Posted by: mwalls at October 1, 2004 11:20 PM

How does Walmart prove to the small business owners in Anytown, USA that opening a Walmart in Anytown is the right thing to do?

The world isn't Sesame Street. Nations are in direct competition with eachother. Anything that benefits the US would be deemed illegitimate. Anything that hurts the US would be legitimate until another country emerges as the world leader. Then anything benefiting that country would be illegitimate and any action hurting it would be legitimate.

The UN wasn't created to end competition. It was created to civilize it and prevent enormous and costly wars like WWII. Since we are the top dogs right now, everybody takes a shot at us when they can to bring us down. To have a policy where the US has to get the approval of the world before acting in its own interest is the same as handing our competitors a stick to beat us with.

Posted by: rob at October 1, 2004 11:41 PM

Passing a global test will mean the U.S. can be attacked and the likelihood of a military response vanishingly small. France, for example, is unlikely ever to give the U.S. carte blanche to attack a country or region.

It just seems so obvious that that policy will result in more attacks on the U.S. as states harbouring terrorists and terroist organization need not worry as much about a U.S. response that will inflict any damage on them.

Very, very sKerry indeed.

Posted by: Solara at October 2, 2004 11:06 AM

From the original post: So, Kerry is saying that if we preemptively strike, we need to first make sure that we can justify our strike to the world.

I can accept that if the U.S. does something, we should do it for the right reasons. We should not attack banana republics just because we want cheap bananas. It would be problematic to attack a banana dictatorship to free enslaved banana pickers. It would be less problematic to attack a banana republic to shut down the production of long rang bananas of mass destruction.

But determining whether or not an attack is justified or not does not strike me as a world test. It strikes me as a morality test or, perhaps, a God test. To call it a world test makes me think less of the test itself and more of the graders. And consider the Senator's actual words:

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 where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you�re doing what you�re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

It is one thing to do the right thing; it is quite another to prove that you are doing the right thing. One must share knowledge to provide proof. Knowledge is power, and in the war on terror, loose lips blow up buildings.

There should be a middle ground where President Bush could have explained the situation in general terms and asked congress for permission to use force before he invaded Iraq. Oh wait, there is such a situation, and he did get congressional permission to use force. Perhaps the problem is with congressmen that say it's ok to use force when they mean to say that we should negotiate more.

Posted by: Tomorrowist at October 2, 2004 01:22 PM

Global test my foot!!!

The L.A.M.E. (Liberal American Media Establishment) has failed in its jounalistic responsibility to objectvely inform the American people on a number of stories. Rathergate is just the tip of the iceberg.

Who will Sen. Kerry seek the counsel off?

The UN is nothing more than a sham nowadays. They can pass resolution after resolution until the cows come home. The genocide in Sudan is still taking place by the Islamofascists who pay no heed to these missives.

As President Bush said if the world body is to have any credibility it has to back up its resolutions.

Need I mention how corrupt the UN is? The UN Oil for Food Program was as corrupt as they come and Saddam was making a mint of it. How can one seek the wise counsel of this body which is a shell of its former self?

The A. Q. Kahn black-market of nuclear technology was operating and undetected right under the noses of the UN and the IAEA. This spread nuclear enrichment technology to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and perhaps Sadi Arabia.

France can stick their noble/moral righteouness where the sun doesn't shine. France was up to its eyeballs with lucrative oil contracts from Saddam. They were also on the receiving end of the spoils from the UN Oil for Food Program. Unfortunately little of this went to the Iraqi people which is further diigusting.

Rumsfield was right when he made the distinction between the Old Europe and the New Europe of breakaway repulbics of the former Soviet Union. They understand the meaning of living under a repressive regime.

And further is was the US with its vast economic resources that restored and protected the Old Europe from the advance of communism. We extended a protective shield around them.

And this is the thanks we get?

They're living in the past.

We shouldn't waste our time with them and asked them for counsel on anything.

The next strategic move in the Middle East is for the US to recognize the struggle of the Iranian people to rid themsleves of the ruling Islamofascist theocracy. They are on the verge of having nuclear capability that poses grave strategic consequences for the regimes.

See Jonal Goldberg's(NRO editor-at -large) lastest article, "Iran at theTipping Point!"

Also here is something all of us from the Blogosphere can do from the safety of our keyboards:

Ron Wright,Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

Posted by: Ron Wrght at October 2, 2004 03:45 PM

Sorry the links dropped out in my post above.

Here's the link to the Golberg article:

Here's the link to what you can do.

Ron Wright, Moderator
HSPIG Forums Site
www.hspig.org

DSICLAIMER - The opinion expressed here is my alone and does not reflect those of my employer and/or any organzation I'm affilated

Posted by: Ron Wrght at October 2, 2004 03:54 PM

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 2, 2004 11:59 PM

Let's assume that Kerry's "Global Test" is, as presented, as sort of "ask forgiveness rather than seek permission", it still implies that in order to meet this test unilatteral action that, if permission had been sought, would have been looked down upon can not be pursued, even if those in opposition have based that opposition upon parochial or pragmatic grounds rather then moral grounds. To use Iraq as an example, one can easilly say that given the evidence gathered as a result of the invasion, the major countries witholding support (i.e. France, Russia and Germany) had marked financial stakes in this opposition (vis-á-vis the Oil-for-Palaces scam). This very exampe itself seems to make the premise of a "Global Test" impractical.

Posted by: submandave at October 4, 2004 01:37 PM

The Global Pop Quiz! By Frank J.

Kerry mentioned a "global test" during Thursday debates, so I sent my crack research staff to find out what that could be. Ends up, it's freely available from the U.N. Here it is:

THE GLOBAL TEST FOR PREEMPTIVE STRIKES
Brought to you by your local U.N.

Please answer these questions with a "yes" or "no" in regards to your proposed preemptive strike.

* Is this action needed to protect your nation from an imminent threat?

* Have you considered all other courses of action?

* Will the U.N. actually have to do anything other than talk?

* Will this financially benefit France?

* Does Communist China think it�s a good idea?

* Do all Communist nations think it's a good idea?

* Even Cuba?

* Can you wait for at least 18 months of pointless U.N. debate before acting?

* Will this in no way help Israel?

* Will this interfere with any current kickback programs at the U.N.?

* Will this in no way anger any Muslims?

* Did you obtain the permission of the country you plan to invade?

If you answered "yes" to all these questions, then you will be allowed to do a preemptive strike after you allow for the debate, fill out an ecological impact form, and grease all the right palms. Thank you for supporting your local U.N. and have a peaceful, globally popular day.

Posted by: Limpet at October 5, 2004 02:48 PM