“Say a POTUS had warning of a potential dirty bomb attack on Israel, and identified a small band of terrorists travelling through Eastern Europe as the instigators. He can take them out in an hour and prevent the attack but to do so involves dropping bombs on a “friendly” nation.”
I’m at a total loss on the logic of this statement. How about Israel taking care of their own business? What would happen if the dirty bomb exploded as the attack occurred? What if innocent women and children were killed or injured?
No, No, No! ONLY immediate action that perils the United States directly are to be acted upon under these directives...NOT THE UN!
“How about Israel taking care of their own business?”
Those were entirely valid questions. But politicians also consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing at home”. Diplomats consider, “how much will our actions affect our standing with our allies”.
Armchair commentators and small-town hick politicians can get away with making blanket assumptions, passing the buck, or playing barrack-room-lawyer to avoid having to make a hard choice. But then, they’re not going to be held to account for the consequences.
Say the terrorists were travelling through Germany and were mere hours away from launching the attack; at the very least the Germans and the Israelis would have to be notified of the threat. In reality, the Israelis are unlikely to be in a position to respond.
Realistically, the German government would have great difficulty authorizing the use of deadly force at short notice, against foreign nationals carrying a dirty bomb through a crowded German town. So would Washington.
If POTUS can’t do anything at all until he’s had all of Congress navel-gaze over all the options on the table and Germany took the same by-the-book approach then the net consequence would be the use of a WMD against one of America’s allies, with both Germany and America forced to sit on their hands.
Is the survival of Israel less important than the rule book?