WaPo reporter Walter Pincus has produced a second story on contingency plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). As far as I can tell, it is a first class job of covering a tough story. The language is complex and the issue sensitive. Pincus is forced to write by contacting officials who are subject to security limitations. His stories are buried deep inside the “A” section of the Washington Post.
Yet there is something missing. The moral dimensions of the story are almost absent. The GetReligion Blog calls these journalistic “ghosts”
There are ghosts in there, hiding in the ink and the pixels. Something is missing in the basic facts or perhaps most of the key facts are there, yet some are twisted. Perhaps there are sins of omission, rather than commission.
A lot of these ghosts are, well, holy ghosts. They are facts and stories and faces linked to the power of religious faith. Now you see them. Now you don’t. In fact, a whole lot of the time you don’t get to see them. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
In this case, the moral dimensions of a pre-emptive nuclear strike are barely detectible. Pincus writes:
Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who called the draft "disturbing" and "representing old, Cold War thinking," said Defense Department officials told him last week that negotiations and discussions on the draft were still underway.
Hobson, who is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said: "I'm hopeful more rational minds will look at this. It is a very provocative proposal."
These rational minds should be asking these questions:
• Can a pre-emptive strike be reconciled with the just war criteria of “last resort”/
• Are Pentagon plans calling for combatant commanders to request release from the President compatible with the just war criteria of “legitimate authority”?
• Given the intelligence failures, what is the expectation that any preemptive attack will satisfy the “probability of success” criteria? Will a pre-emptive nuclear attack make the country safer.
Pincus did do his homework. He includes a link to the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Joint Publication 3-12 final coordination draft. This draft (quoted below) does touch on just war considerations.
Religion journalists should be all over this question. As I’ve said on August 22 the Bishops will have little to say about this question. It is time for some religion journalists to start digging and write a few stories. Time is short and there is room to act. As Pincus reports
On Sept. 9, a spokesman for the Pentagon's Joint Staff said the draft document was undergoing final clearance from the military services and the office of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and was expected to be signed "in a few weeks" by the Joint Staff director, Lt. Gen. Walter L. Sharp.
Extract from JP 3-12, page I-9
The decision to employ nuclear weapons at any level requires explicit orders from the President. Senior commanders make recommendations affecting nuclear policy decisions on force structure, weapon and force capabilities, and alternative employment options. The use of nuclear weapons represents a significant escalation from conventional warfare and may be provoked by some action, event, or threat. However, like any military action, the decision to use nuclear weapons is driven by the political objective sought. This choice involves many political considerations, all of which impact nuclear weapon use, the types and number of weapons used, and method of employment.
International reaction toward the country or nonstate entity that first employs weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is an important political consideration. The United States and its allies articulated their abhorrence of unrestricted warfare by codifying “laws of war,” and turning to definitions of “just war.” The tremendous destructive capability of WMD and the consequences of their use resulted in a number of agreements restricting deployment and use. Nevertheless, while the belligerent that initiates nuclear warfare may find itself the target of world condemnation, no customary or conventional international law prohibits nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict. The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss of civilian life and damage to civilian property incidental to attacks must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained. Commanders therefore have the responsibility to attempt to minimize collateral damage to the greatest extent practicable. The law of armed conflict does not prohibit nuclear weapons use in armed conflict although they are unique from conventional and even other WMD in the scope of their destructive potential and long-term effects.
One of my former colleagues had a sign on his desk saying "if you are looking for someone with a little influence, please talk to me. I have as little as anyone." Won't someone with a little more influence take up the story?
Comments