Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention
By Kari Rudolph
12th grade
Should our government’s military use preemption or prevention? Would it be a wiser choice for the United States to protect our country on probable cause, or should we just be prepared for the worst? I do not believe that we should be asking ourselves if either preemption or prevention is a better tool in defending this country. Is it not possible to join ideas in making a greater defense? There is not any wrong answer. Preemption and prevention are both tactful ways of keeping America a strong nation. Maybe one is not better than the other. Think of what the possibilities could be if preemption and prevention were combined into a strategy of defense.
Senator Feingold explained preemption to be “knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself.” Many people would be reluctant to agree to this plan of defense for the simple fact of what would happen if the U.S. was wrong in the accusation of attack from a foreign land. We may kill innocent people for no reason. This is a logical argument and question that can be answered so simply when thought about. I do not believe that the President or military would act hastily on attacking another country. There is not a doubt in my mind that the U.S. wouldn’t attack unless they would be one hundred percent sure that the welfare of our own country was in danger. In would be ignorant for us to know of enemy plans and not sure them to our advantage. The lives saved would be endless. This is also another way of showing other foreign lands of American strength and intelligence. The U.S. is the major world power, and we should be proud of that. By the use of preemption, other countries would see that the United States will never fail or be undertaken. A fall back to preemption would be the use of it by other countries. Other nations will think that if preemption works successfully for the United States, then it should for their own nation also.
Senator Feingold’s definition for prevention is “believing that another may possibly attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. It is the difference between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a given government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity.” It should be a given that the United States military is prepared for an attack. They should never let their guard down. If the military takes precautions with other countries, defense will be less trouble. Many believe though that prevention is not aggressive enough to protect our families and land. Though it is true that we shouldn’t just let another country take advantage of our wealth and power, it is also true that we can not attack every country that may appear as a threat. We would not be much of a nation if we only protected the lives of Americans. We need to also think of the men, women, and children that might die because of a quick and hasty decision. Prevention is different from preemption for the simple fact that we are ready when another country attacks us. If we are not strong enough to protect our nation while under attack, how do we think we can withhold the power of other nations? There is never a fall back to being prepared for the worst, and that is what our military should always be prepared for.
I do not believe that either one of these methods of defense should be used without the other. Preemption and prevention are both wonderful strategies of defense and it is together that they could possibly be the weapon for holding our country together. If other countries began to use preemption themselves, I believe that prevention would be the tool to keep others from over powering us. Preemption and prevention can work together as tools of defense. We would be a more effective country if we all worked together in a common goal. It is not a matter of who is right and who is wrong; it is a matter of what is in the best interest of the people and country. Rather than my answer to this question being either preemption or prevention, my answer instead is both preemption and prevention. This is how the United States will remain the great world- wide power and the nation of all nations.
Questions
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Speech
Q1-What does the Prime Minister mean by "politics of globalization"? He wants to use the "power of community" to do what?
Politics of globalization is the fact that it doesn’t matter whether or not the nations of the world act in their own self-interests, because our self interest and our mutual interest are today inextricably woven together. The Prime Minister wants to use the power of community to combine globalization with justice.
Greaves Whitney
Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
John F. Kennedy- He was known for wanting to practice patience and restraint. At the same time, he recognizes that in certain matters, it is not possible to practice these.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt- He told the Nazis that the United States would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. This meant that if the U.S. felt any threat from the Nazis, we would defend ourselves.
Bill Clinton- He was known for being involved with Operation Desert Fox which was an intense eloquent seventy hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein.
Excerpt from November 8, 2003 Issue of the Economist
Q 3- Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
He remarked upon America’s vociferous democracy, decentralization, and the intensity of its people’s religious belief.
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?
It will be better for the world if America can bring stability and prosperity to Iraq. It would be exceptionally good if we are able to bring Iraq democracy. Without democracy it would be impossible to prevent a dictator from taking over the people of Iraq.
Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
Incompetence is what American’s fear most. In bringing stability, prosperity, and democracy to Iraq brings a great threat to the American people. Many people think that by doing this, the lives of Americans are being risked. This viewed by many is irresponsible of our leaders. People fear that we are getting involved in something that we may not be prepared for.
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?
It would be an irresponsible act for America to withdraw hastily from Iraq. When we intervened in Iraq, we showed other countries that Iraq was indeed a different nation from others. Iraq is one that is prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what is right. If we are willing to help Iraq, we should stick with them until the end. If we don’t, America will appear to be weaker and cowardly.
Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
It is the combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor that will make America stronger in the future.
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Senator Byrd, Senator Feingold, and Senator Kennedy were three U.S. Senators that expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
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.
Senator Feingold believes that preemption is “knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself.” Prevention is “believing that another may possibly attack, or many desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. It is the difference between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a given government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity.”
Yes, I do agree with the Senator on his definition of preemption and prevention. He draws a fine line between when we should take immediate action an attack and when we should wait and be prepared for disaster. It would be ignorant for the United States to act hastily in a situation and take lives of people when it could have been prevented.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
I believe that the world would be a safer place if the most powerful countries engaged in preemption. I believe that it would be unnecessary for a country to be aware of an enemy plans and not act on it. There is no reason that a country shouldn’t go ahead and defend themselves, instead of waiting, and possibly taking the lives of American
people.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
Yes, our national values would thrive in such a world. Our leaders would be able to concentrate on other needs of the country more than having to fear other nations around the world.
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?
It would wither away. If terrorists believe that countries are aware of their planned attacks, they will be less likely to carry out with them. They will begin to fear for their lives and the sake of their country.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
“There is no place for weakness. There is no place for wishy-washiness. There is only a place for steadfastness and a place for supreme dedication to the Constitution of the United States, for every word that is in it, and to stand by the spirit with which it speaks. We cannot stand by that spirit and just go along.” This would not be possible without the doctrine of preemption. Preemption would allow America to continue democracy without fear of being taken over. This could be the key to prevent another event such as September 11 from happening. Preemption can not bring back the lives that have already been lost, but it can stop the deaths of others.
Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context ?
Senator Byrd quoted Madison: “The trust and temptation are too great for any one man,” when speaking on how we should respect and support our President.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
1. Other countries may begin their own campaigns for preemption, and preemption could be dangerous in the hands of other countries.
2. Our country has never had to use force to make over the world as we see fit.
3. A large number of men and women may become casualties if the country goes to war in a preemptive strike.
4. Congress is under a lot of pressure to pass the resolution.
5. They would be ceding the constitutional authority to declare war.
6. By voting for this kind of resolution, the people are being cheated.