Would Obama Retaliate against a Nuclear Attack?

Would Obama Retaliate against a Nuclear Attack?

By Rabbi
Aryeh Spero

What if a Muslim country, such as Iran, launched a
nuclear attack against us, or if agents aligned with Pakistan using dirty bombs
were to attack America?  Would Barack Hussein Obama retaliate with nuclear
force, as has been our stated policy since the 1950s?  Would he even unleash a
barrage of non-nuclear shock and awe that would level those countries so that
they’d be incapable of striking a second time?

When queried in
Japan in November 2009, Mr. Obama declined to defend President Harry Truman’s
nuclear attack on Hiroshima, despite it having saved hundreds of thousands of
American soldiers who would have otherwise died trying to defeat the
recalcitrant Japanese.  Many on the left and in academia have gone so far as to
characterize it as a display of American racism, questioning if we would have
done so had the victims been British.  They ignore the efficacy of how that
one-time use of a nuclear weapon spared this country from ever being a victim of
nuclear attack.

This is a question the president needs to be asked,
given how he is a proponent of a doctrine labeled Responsibility to
, “R2P.”  The question is, though, what is Mr. Obama’s conceptual
understanding of the term “responsibility” and how will it influence the manner
in which he wages war?

The past may be a guide.  As with all references to
“responsibility,” domestic or foreign, Obama sees responsibility as a type of
sacrifice by the more powerful to those less powerful, be it
redistribution of wealth or sacrificing one’s optimal protection when weighed
against how it effects those he considers innocent.  A nuclear response to a
nuclear attack on us, or even a devastating shock and awe campaign, would
certainly kill many non-combatants Obama would consider

The assumption that, as with all presidents, Mr. Obama
would do what is best for America and Americans cannot be taken for granted.
We’ve never before had a president who sees himself primarily as a citizen of
the world and initiates policies not always in the best interests of America but
in the interest of more important (to him) global goals: loans to Brazil for
their offshore drilling, hundreds of millions to Palestinian Arabs and Muslim
countries — increasing an already unbearable debt on Americans to do so.  Not
to mention how he has tried every which way to stop Arizonans (Americans) from
protecting themselves from murder, rape, thievery, and destruction of their
property from mobs cascading into our open borders — doing so, as he always
does, by invoking some universalist “morality” and mission that, in his mind,
supersede our parochial needs.  He has reneged on our commitment for a
space shield for our allies in Eastern Europe while offering it to Russia, a
threat to America.

Indeed, Obama has spent much time traversing the globe
apologizing to all those countries that he claims have been the target of
“arrogant” American military power.  Would he, then, be inclined to use the
essence of American military power, its nuclear force?  Many around the world
will not be deterred from going nuclear against us unless it is unequivocally
understood that they will be annihilated if they do so.

None of this is remotely to imply that the president
would be sanguine if our country were attacked; rather, one wonders if he has
the stomach to retaliate overwhelmingly against the attackers, especially since
he could rationalize his reluctance in terms of a “higher morality” that says:
we can’t bring back our dead by killing citizens elsewhere who did not pull the
trigger against us.  His dilemma will be compounded if a dirty bomb or EMP were
launched against us not by a government per se but by a group of terrorists
independent of a government which nonetheless gives them sanctuary.  After all,
the Arab/Muslim cause has been very adept and successful in demanding that its
territories and people be spared retaliation by claiming that terrorism is the
work of individuals and not a particular state or government — and Mr. Obama is
part of that chorus.

Furthermore, are we certain that Mr. Obama considers
American life more important than, say, Iranian life, or that there is something
exceptional about America that warrants choosing it and its people over the
exceptional nature he has equally granted other countries and peoples?  Forget
all these assumed notions that a president will always do what is best for
Americans — it boils down to Mr. Obama’s moral compass.  If he thinks the way I
think he does, he may likely consider it immoral to kill Pakistanis in order to
save Americans, or Canadians.

The question becomes more acute if the attack comes
from a Muslim source.  And that is because Mr. Obama demonstrates an unbreakable
political and ethnic simpatico (though not necessarily religious) with Muslim
causes and Muslim
people to a degree not seen in any Western leader today or before.  What
president designates an entire government agency, NASA, to forgo its intrinsic
purpose and changes it to Muslim

Be it bowing to Saudi kings, funneling billions to
causes around the world, ordering expanded immigration of Muslims
into this country, waxing poetic about the “holy” Koran, instituting White House
Ramadan Dinners, and re-writing American history to pretend some type of
significant early historical relationship with Islam, as well as maneuvering to
transform ancient Jerusalem, the Jewish spiritual capital, into an Islamic
capital — all of this shows a man whose identity and heart are very tied up
with things Islamic.  There is something operating within the bosom of Obama
beyond so-called political even- handedness.  It is a love

Obama the Christian made his feelings clear in his
book, The Audacity of Hope (pg.261), that if
elected he would stand with Islam, no matter the prevailing winds against it.
And why not?  His family back in Africa is Islamic.  In his Cairo speech he said
America will never be at war with Islam and that he sees his duty as president
of the United States to fight against any type of stereotyping of Islam, no
matter where.  Would he be willing, then, to use nuclear armaments against a
society he endlessly keeps telling us is peace-loving and full of compassion and

Deep down, Obama may consider such wholesale
retaliation as racist, since its victims are of a darker skin color than
Anglos.  One cannot minimize the extent to which Obama and the left have
expanded the definition of racism and how averting “racism” has become the
centerpiece of all decision-making, overshadowing and surpassing even needs for
defense.  Even now, Obama leaves the country vulnerable to jihadist plans with
his refusal to ever mention the name Islam or Islamic when forced to comment on
the many attacks by young Islamists on this country during the past few years.
He has done nothing to stop Iran from engineering its nuclear bomb and seems to
be standing in the way of those who would like to protect us from a future
nuclear inferno. Addressing the Manhattan Institute last week, former Attorney
General Michael Mukasey warned of an Obama administration that implements
policies that sacrifice an optimal protecting of Americans for what it considers
even more important: making sure that there is no domestic backlash against Muslims.

There are those who point to his willingness to fight
in Iraq and Afghanistan.  But Obama’s new “rules of engagement,” designed to
save Muslim
lives and honor Muslim sensitivities, have resulted in many unnecessary American
deaths.  This itself should prove the inverted priorities and danger inherent in
his version of warfare — it is American life which is sacrificed in the name of
responsibility.  Truth be told, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has not taken on
Islamic governments, rather the Taliban,
which he considers an enemy of Islamic regimes.  It is unclear, however, if he
would actually go to war against an actual Islamic regime or government when the
need to do so is specifically American and does not accrue to the benefit of the
Islamic world.

Can we rely on his constitutional obligation to defend
America?  He may very well consider the defense of America to be better served
through threats of retaliation but not retaliation itself, or he may prefer
negotiation as the better route to defense, more “consistent with our values,”
as he often intones.  Nowhere is it written that he must constitutionally defer
to his predecessors’ notion of what constitutes an appropriate response.
Perhaps he will bypass the Constitution, as he has so often done in domestic
affairs, under the rationale that he inherited these problems from Bush.  Will
our military have to wait for a second round of attacks while the president
wavers or consults with Samantha Power?

Campaigns provide that one season and window where a
president can’t hide in the White House and be shielded from the tough
questions.  But it only happens if his opponents raise the issues publicly since
the media seem unwilling to make Mr. Obama uncomfortable.

Our candidates should pose this very question. And
this time we need direct, clear answers — no Obamaspeak, no bureaucratic mumbo
jumbo. America needs to know, and so does the world.

Rabbi Spero is president of Caucus
for America and can be reached at