Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention
By Kaitlin Cooper
12th grade
Recent events have forced our country to look, rethink, and review our existing policies. How far is too far when we are protecting our interests? Should we wait for other countries’ approval to attack other countries or go at it alone and fight for what we know is right? There is a famous saying, “We should learn from our past”. Is our country doing this?
Some of our country’s most popular and admired presidents have helped to prevent wars and keep our country out of conflict. The first President that I think of that did this is Teddy Roosevelt. He turned the Monroe Doctrine into a Good Neighbor Policy in order to try and ease tensions that existed around the world during his presidency. President Franklin Roosevelt also tried through neutrality legislation to keep the United States of America out of the war that was taking place in Europe. Although we were eventually attacked at Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt managed to keep the United States out of World War II for approximately two years.
Governments have also prevented wars by implementing trade sanctions on another country. If a country is doing something wrong or oppressive, instead of taking aggressive actions like a military attack, a country has the option of not trading with them. Instead of inflicting physical damage and loss of life, a country can hurt the economy of another country until they change their ways.
Another thing that helps to prevent wars is mutual assured destruction. This was the case during the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union both knew that they had the capability to destroy each other. It was just an issue of who was going to attack first. The nations knew that if they attacked, the other would immediately strike back. This would result in total destruction. This threat prevented the two countries from engaging in conflict.
Governments can also prevent war by keeping the people within their countries happy. Governments should take care of their people and make sure that the standard of living is acceptable and the people don’t live in poverty. If the people of a country are unhappy they are more likely to press for war in order to try to gain resources and land to better their country. Many countries prevent war by keeping a normal standard of living. It is an easy prevention method that has been used for a long time. It is obvious that if the people are happy, the country they live in will be successful.
Governments have also prevented war by being a part of different peace organizations. The United Nations, an inter-governmental organization, and NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, are just two example of peace keeping organizations. Countries hesitate to go to war without their approval. These organizations work to keep peace and promote compromise and agree to war only if it is the last resort.
Although governments have not always been successful in preventing war, I don’t think that any country wants to be involved in war. I think that our country should adopt a policy of preemption and stand by it. If we know that a country is going to attack us, there is no point in waiting to attack them. If we are successful, we will have gotten our point across and there will be no more aggression. If all countries adopt a policy of preemption we would be better off. Some might say that policy would cause worldwide war and destruction. I don’t think it will. With today’s technology and know how, countries will be afraid to make threats or plan to attack each other because they wouldn’t want the repercussion of an attack.
In order to prevent war between two or more countries, I think a new program should be founded. We should establish a world police. As of right now, the United States is pretty much filling that position, and it’s not fair. We are standing up for what is right, but we are also having to put our country through a war-like situation. Our men and women in the armed forces are risking their lives, and our money is being used to rebuild Iraq. There should be a worldwide organization with representatives from each country that decides when action should be taken against a country. The “police force” could be made up of volunteers from all nations. An attack would be imminent if and only if every other form of negotiation had failed. I think that an organization such as this would greatly help the prevention of war in the future. It would also take away the burden of other countries having to act on their own at their own risk.
In conclusion, I think the formation of a world police force would help to prevent war in the future. All countries will unite together and share the cost, liability, exposure, and responsibility that would come with an organization of that measure.
Questions
Q 1. What does the Prime Minister mean by “politics of globalization”? He wants to use the “power of community” to do what?
Politics of globalization means the argument of globalization. There are reasons to globalize and not to globalize. It is driven by people in communication, in technology, in culture, and in recreation. There also has to be globalization for the internet, information technology, and television. There is an argument against it because we don’t really have control over it. Unknown forces rule it, and people don’t like that.
Tony Blair wants to use the power of community to combine globalization with justice.
Q 2. Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his articles. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
Greaves Whitney singled out John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton. The reason he discussed these three former presidents was because they all had a policy of preemption. He wanted to prove that preemption is not a new concept. Some of our most well-known and well-liked presidents have used preemption, and we survived. It didn’t ruin our country.
Q 3. Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
Alexis de Tocqueville found three qualities that were exceptional about Americans. We are exceptional because we have a vociferous democracy, decentralization, and the intensity of our people’s religious beliefs.
Q 4. Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity, and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails?
I think it would definitely be better for the world if we succeed in bringing stability, prosperity, and democracy to Iraq. Since we have taken the lead and stood against what is wrong and evil, it is imperative that we succeed. The world needs to view us as a superpower, not just another country that stands by. If Iraq turns out to be a democratic nation, who knows what good could come out of that. There are so many untapped resources in Iraq. I know that they could make a contribution to the world economy eventually.
Q 5. Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
I would definitely say that some countries fear our competence. We are such a powerful nation by means of military, intelligence, and political power… what’s not to fear? If a country has something to hide, we will know about it. Countries definitely fear our power, but I think that they also should be comforted by it.
Q 6. If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would that be a sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act?
First of all, I don’t think we would “hastily” withdraw from Iraq. We are the ones who started the war, so it is our responsibility to help finish and clean up. It we did withdraw after being attacked, I think it would be a sign of humility. We would get the point that the Iraqis don’t want us there anymore. I think we would get the hint and get out of there so we wouldn’t risk any more American lives.
Q7. What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
I think the fact that we are willing to stand against what is wrong and to do something about it definitely makes us stronger. It shows that we are a nation of compassion and a nation of our word. We don’t just say we are going to take action, we do. This proves to other nations that they shouldn’t mess with us because we aren’t afraid to take action.
Q 8. Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Senator Feingold, Senator Byrd, and Senator Hagel
Q 9. State Senator Feingold’s definition of preemption and prevention. How does he describe the difference between the two? Do you agree with the Senator? Explain.
Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing that another may possibly attack, or may desire to attack. The difference is having information that an attack is imminent and believing that a particular government is hostile towards the United States and continues to build up its military capacity. Yes, Senator Feingold’s definitions are accurate in my eyes. Preemption is knowing that another country is going to attack, so you defend yourself. Prevention is believing that another country could possibly attack. The difference is knowing for a fact and just believing.
Q 10. In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
Yes, I think when a country has power, and they know that another country will attack them that they should be aggressive. When this happens other countries will realize that they shouldn’t mess with that country because aggression is sure to follow. This will create a safer world. Not as many countries will be willing to risk an attack.
Q 11. In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
Yes, I think so. Our nation takes pride in our power and innovation. We are so powerful that other countries aren’t willing to attack us because they know they wouldn’t stand a chance. People would be forced to consider a more peaceful route, such as negotiating differences or even implementing a democratic society.
Q 12. In your opinion, would such a world be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits would increase in number daily?
This type of world would be one in which terrorism would wither. Terrorists would know if they took the offensive and attacked, there would be a price to pay. Terrorists would get what was coming to them. Countries wouldn’t just sit back and take it. They would attack the terrorists.
Q 13. Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
The first reason that I support the doctrine of preemption is because it will warn other countries not to interfere with us. The Monroe Doctrine told European nations to stay out of our business, and having a doctrine of preemption will do the same thing. Another reason that I support the doctrine of preemption is because we are capable of doing so. Our nation is so powerful in so many diverse areas. It would be crazy to sit back and let another country attack us. The third reason I support a doctrine of preemption is because we are a caring nation. If we see another country suffering we are going to step up and do what’s right-no matter what any other country says.
Q 14. Who said “The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.”? What was the context?
Madison said, “The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.” When Senator Byrd made that comment, he was referring to the President. He said that because he doesn’t want Congress to just go along with whatever the President wants. He wants Congress to talk it out and debate it and decide on what is right.
Q 15. Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
What will be the cost? How many men and women do we expect will become casualties if this country goes to war in a preemptive strike against Iraq? What is going to be the cost in dollars? What is going to happen to Israel? What is the image of the United States going to be? What is going to happen to the people of Israel?