You read that right. This is not Russ Fein*GOLD*, but rather Dianne Fein*STEIN*, usually a pretty hawkish conservative Democratic Senator.
In an op-ed in yesterday's LA Times, she writes:
...the administration reportedly is intent upon relying on the failed doctrine of preemption and new Pentagon planning that stokes the prospect of military conflict. If this is true, Americans ought to be deeply concerned.
More snippets and commentary below the fold...
Feinstein is very clear as to why Bush's preemption doctrine is dangerous and counterproductive:
Just a few weeks ago, the doctrine was reiterated in the latest National Security Strategy. According to this document, the U.S. may use force before it is attacked because the nation cannot afford to "stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Yet it is the doctrine itself that is dangerous.
First, it demands that our intelligence be right -- every time. This is difficult, if not impossible, in the shadowy world of terrorism and WMD. As we've seen in Iraq, intelligence not only can be wrong, it can be manipulated. Our nation's credibility and stature have taken a huge hit as a result, and the U.S. is in no position to garner support in the international community for military confrontation based on preemption.
Second, the doctrine of preemption may lead to a less stable world in general -- especially if our adversaries believe they are safe from preemptive action only if they possess nuclear weapons. Iran has no doubt noted the difference in our dealings with North Korea, which possesses nuclear weapons, and Iraq, which the administration believed was still developing them. So the administration may have encouraged the very proliferation it is seeking to prevent.
Third, an overreliance on preemption can lead to the downplaying of diplomacy. By the administration's own account, Iran is years away from possessing nuclear weapons; there is time to engage in forceful diplomatic action.
She is also very crticial very clear on why the threat of first use of nuclear weapons is disastrous:
The dangers inherent in preemptive action are only multiplied by reports that the administration may be considering first use of tactical, battlefield nuclear weapons in Iran: Specifically, nuclear "bunker busters" to try to take out deeply buried targets.
There are some in this administration who have been pushing to make nuclear weapons more "usable." They see nuclear weapons as an extension of conventional weapons. This is pure folly.
As a matter of physics, there is no missile casing sufficiently strong to thrust deep enough into concrete or granite to prevent the spewing of radiation. Nuclear "bunker busters" would kill tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people across the Middle East.
This would be a disastrous tragedy. First use of nuclear weapons by the United States should be unthinkable. A preemptive nuclear attack violates a central tenet of the "just war" and U.S. military traditions.
As a California leftist/progressive, I have in the past been very critical of Dianne Feinstein's stance on many foreign policy questions, which I have viewed as too bellicose and interventionist. But in this op-ed she articulates a thoughtful, principled stand, critical of Bush and the neocons, and in favor of a more "safe and sane" foreign policy. We should all congratulate her for it.
We should also note the political significance of her taking this public position at this time. Feinstein is considered an influential "moderate" Democrat who serves on many committees central to questions of U.S. security and foreign policy.
This op-ed should be read a clear signal to Bush and the neocons that they will not have bipartisan cover for agressive war (much less nuclear attacks) this time around. Not much can restrain those lunatics, but this, together with the obvious balking of poodle Blair, just might get their attention.