The shadings and subtle nuances that distinguish the Clinton and Obama words on deterrence have been given a lot of attention lately, but actual Bush administration policy has escaped serious scrutiny. As is so often the case with this administration, the changes that they choose not to publicize heavily (even, in this case, when it would appear to be in their interest to do so) are at least as important as the ones that they do.
Elbridge Colby is an adjunct staff member at the RAND Corporation, and has served in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and on the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. In a commentary posted on the RAND website(and published in the April 10th Weekly Standard), he called attention to a speech by Stephen Hadley that has, as far as I know, not received any other coverage.
In a little noticed speech on February 8, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley announced that the United States had recently adopted "a new declaratory policy to help deter terrorists from using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our friends, and allies." This policy would threaten with retaliation "those states, organizations, or individuals who might enable or facilitate terrorists in obtaining or using weapons of mass destruction."
Colby generally approves of this new declared policy, even as he notes the sweeping nature of the uttered deterrent threat. He likes the idea of using deterrence against terrorism by threatening those who help terrorists, even though non-state groups and even individuals will be judged not merely for participation or active support, but for
complicity in, or even negligence in the face of WMD strikes against the United States or its allies. ... When the consequences are so grave and traditional approaches so insufficient, society may reasonably call for higher standards of behavior, as in the cases of quarantines, third-party liability statutes, and European "Good Samaritan" laws.
I don't know what "society" Colby has in mind, but I don't recall any public decision or even discussion of this policy change that would justify terming it what American society demands. (And for the record, you can count me out).
Would a parent who fed and housed a teen-ager who "might" have been involved in an attack be a declared target? Would it be reasonable to level an entire village because all of the people living there "might" have provided "support" to one of the villagers who "might" have engaged in this activity? This policy seems to amount to the declared intention to kill anybody that the U.S. government thinks ought to be killed, so long as the U.S. executive branch believes they "might" have some connection to terrorists.
Am I being too alarmist? Or not alarmist enough?