Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention
By Kimberly S. Taylor
12th grade
In an address made to the citizens of the United States of America during the Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy said that “We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security.” In this statement, President Kennedy is confronting the issue of preemption, which is “the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future.” This doctrine puts a different spin on the traditional concept of self defense.
Throughout the years, the doctrine of preemption and whether it should be enacted by the United States of America has caused a tremendous amount of controversy. However, it has been employed more than once throughout the history of the United States. Some instances where a preemptive strike was made by the United States military are the Cuban missile crisis, the cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan, Sudan, and Kosovo, and, most recently, Operation Enduring Freedom. These strikes and the doctrine of prevention have been controversial for many reasons, but one area of discussion when arguing for or against preemption is the pros and cons of the doctrine.
The main pro of the doctrine of preemption is that innocent lives are not lost because we waited for the enemy to attack us first. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, took the lives of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting American citizens. We knew that Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al-Qaida posed a potential threat to the security of the United States and had taken action against us in the past. However, if we had enacted a doctrine of preemption, we might have been able to stop the plane hijackings and destruction of part of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center by attacking the terrorist, thus saving the lives of so many innocent people.
The main con of the doctrine of preemption is that the government must justify military action based on conjectures and suppositions. When a preemptive strike is launched, the target has yet to actually carry any action out against the attacking nation. Therefore, there is little or no concrete proof that something would have actually happened if the strike had not been launched. The events that have occurred in Iraq, while trying to prove that Saddam Hussein was harboring or building weapons of mass destruction, have shown how difficult it is to prove that an enemy nation was plotting against us before an actual attack is made.
Personally, I believe that a preemptive strike can have positive effects when carried out correctly. A preemptive strike might have been able to prevent the terrorist attacks carried out by members of al-Qaida on September 11, 2001. In addition, there is no telling what might have occurred had preemption not been enacted during the Cuban missile crisis, in Kosovo, and in Afghanistan in 1998. In these instances, a preemptive strike was an intelligent and crucial move to prevent the loss of numerous American lives.
Nevertheless, when you discuss taking any kind of military action, you must take ethics into consideration. First of all, you must ask, “Is it okay to kill a person?” If you believe in the teachings of the Bible, this question would most likely be answered with a resounding no. However, when considered from a military stance, your only options are usually kill or be killed. Is it worth the risk of losing the lives of no telling how many innocent civilians because an enemy nation has yet to actually act against us? Should we wait for them to fire before we load our guns? It seems that we would be compelled to act against the enemy before they attacked in order to prevent the loss of our own people. Then again, one must also consider the innocent people who are residents of the enemy’s nation. Like the innocent civilians in Afghanistan, they most likely have little association with the terrorists or government that is threatening the country that is planning the preemptive strike. A preemptive strike might cost the lives of some of these people.
The doctrine of preemption has been a source of argument in the United States and other nations. Ethical considerations and historical results and consequences continue to play into this controversy to this very day. The decision to attack a nation that does not pose an immediate threat but may attack in the future is one that will always face the leaders of the nations of this world.
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?
In using the term “politics of globalization,” Prime Minister Tony Blair means that the world community’s self-interest and mutual interest are “inextricably woven together” and that the world community must show its “compassion as well as its force.” He wants to use the “power of community” to solve the “continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” “defeat climate change,” “breathe new life into the Middle East peace process,” and to not walk away from the challenges facing Afghanistan.
Gleaves Whitney
Q 2- Gleaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
In his article, Gleaves Whitney chooses to single out Presidents John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton. He mentions these three Democratic presidents, because most of the current Democratic party members are opposed to a preemptive strike against Iraq. However, all of the three presidents mentioned in the article spoke out in favor of or exercised preemption during their terms in office. It was during the Cuban Missile Crisis that President John F. Kennedy said “We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security…" Even before that, F.D.R. had told the American people during one of his fireside chats that “This is the time for prevention of attack.” Finally, Bill Clinton exercised preemption when he launched Operation Desert Fox 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.
Three qualities Alexis de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans are “its vociferous democracy, its liking for voluntary associations,” 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 would be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity, and especially democracy to Iraq. First of all, if America were to fail, past and current American efforts to bring stability to Iraq would have been in vain. Also, if we do not establish a stable and democratic Iraq, there is nothing to prevent another dictator from taking over where Saddam Hussein left off.
Q 5- Is is American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
It seems that both American competence and incompetence are feared. Those who fear American competence perhaps fear the establishment of democracy or an outreach of American power in the Middle East. Conversely, people who fear American incompetence most likely worry about the disastrous effects that could occur if America was to fail and terror resumed control of Iraq.
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?
If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq under the pressure of attacks, it would be a devastatingly irresponsible act. To retreat under the pressure of attack would make America seem cowardly, despite the fact that we could claim victory for simply capturing Saddam Hussein. Foreign voices mocked and belittled America for withdrawing in previous campaigns, so to withdraw from Iraq would most likely have the same effect today.
Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
The writer claims that America’s “combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor” are likely to make it even stronger in the future.
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption were Senator Byrd, Senator Feingold, and Senator Leahy.
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 defines preemption as “knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself.” His definition of prevention is “believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds.” He describes the difference between the two as having knowledge that a country is planning an attack or is in negotiations with a hostile enemy and believing that someone is opposed to the United States and might one day enter into hostile negotiations.
Yes, I agree with Senator Feingold. His definitions of preemption and prevention are clear and concise. Also, his explanation of the differences between the two indicates the difference between taking action against something that you know is going to happen and attacking because you think something might happen at any time in the future.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
Yes, I believe the world would be safer if the most powerful countries engage in preemption. If a country, like the United States, knows that someone is planning an attack, they should not wait for innocent people to be killed in order to take action. I firmly believe that if we had been positive that attacks would occur on September 11, 2001, a preemptive strike would have been taken against al-Qaida.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
I think our national values would thrive if our nation’s leaders were able to enact preemptive methods to fight terrorist threats.
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?
If terrorists believed that we had an expansive information system to learn of the attacks and that we were going to attack before they could, I believe that it would be a world in which terrorism would wither.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
One reason to favor the doctrine of preemption would be to prevent the loss of innocent lives. If we had obtained knowledge of the September 11th attacks beforehand, who knows how many lives could have been saved by a preemptive strike on Afghanistan and al-Qaida? Another reason to favor the doctrine of preemption would be that it gives the U.S. another option when deterrence and containment fail. If we know a country has obtained weapons of mass destruction, we could use preemption to obtain the weapons before they are deployed against us. Finally, the doctrine of preemption is favorable because it might give us the strength to defend democracy and ourselves when the United Nations or others do not back us.
Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context?
Senator Byrd credited Madison with the quote. He is saying that we should support our president, but to entrust him with the complete control of our military forces is too great of a temptation for any one man to handle.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
1) The amount a preemptive strike would cost the United States.
2) The fact that Congress is being rushed to vote on the resolution.
3) The resolution was just thrown together and will not be unanimous.
4) There is no time limit on the President’s control of the military forces concerning Iraq or preemptive strikes.
5) Congress is completely handing over its right to declare war.
6) The U.S. will be making a preemptive strike without the support of the United Nations.