Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention
By Krista Osment
Grade: 12
Tragedy: a word this country has come to know well. Throughout our country’s history events such as September 11th and Pearl Harbor have left us shocked, devastated, angry, and sacred. These events left us feeling unsafe and worried. Would something similar happen again? Undoubtedly, history seems to repeat itself again and again.
This country was founded on the principles that each person has the right to life and liberty. It is the government’s duty to protect its people in any way possible. We should be able to live without the fear of outside attacks. But with the world we live in, how can we? I believe that through preemptive action the people of this country will be able to feel at least a little bit of safety in their homeland.
Many of our country’s leaders have been in favor of preemptive action. During the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy showed his support by telling Americans that standing back and doing nothing would be the greatest danger of all. Three months prior to the attacks on Pearl Harbor Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Nazis that the United States would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. More recently President Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, which was an intense 70-hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign he guaranteed Americans that we would remain a strong military presence in the area and would remain ready to use it if Saddam tried to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam Hussein has been a constant fear in the minds of many Americans. For the first time action is being taken against our aggressor.
President Bush has done what he could to stop Hussein from continuing to have biological and chemical weapons. President Bush realizes the immediate need to stop these weapons of mass destruction from being used. Maybe if we stop this and him now we will be saving ourselves from a future tragedy.
Franklin Roosevelt once asked our country to think about something. If you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. These words should give us much to think about. If the United States government knows of someone that is a threat to this country and its people I believe action should be taken. We must use history to our advantage and learn from it. President Kennedy was correct when he told Americans that the 1930s and Hitler should be a good lesson in the fact that things that go unchecked or are not challenged can only lead to worse things such as war. While Presidents such as Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Clinton did push preemption, for the most part this country tended to be patient and practiced restraint. I believe that when our safety is on the line further action must be taken.
September 11th, Pearl Harbor, and other events have left this country feeling somewhat vulnerable. Whatever vulnerability we fell, we must not let it show. We must remain the strong, world power we are. With taking preemptive action, however, there will be consequences. We must be prepared. Certain questions arise when it comes to preemption. Such concerns such as cost have come up. When it comes to cost I don’t think it could ever be too high when it comes to our own safety. People often complain about the money, but they need to stop and think what could happen if were using the money to take preemptive action. Would you rather be spending money to protect ourselves or would you rather see this country in another attack?
This nation’s safety is the government’s responsibility. There was such a debate over what action to take in Iraq. Many were in favor of us waiting. Waiting for what, I ask. Should we just sit back and wait for another attack? Would that justify taking action anymore than the thousands of lives already lost by one attack? Action must be taken as soon as the safety of this country is at stake.
Throughout our country’s history lives have been lost, millions of tears cried, and the country’s strength was put to the test. Could preemptive action have prevented this? Well, it could do far more than sitting back and doing nothing at all. Preemptive action is our response to a large number of tough lessons learned from history. Maybe our actions in Iraq today will also prove to be a lesson to future generations. We must not sit back and wait for the snake to bite. One he has it will already be too late.
Questions
Q1. In using the words “politics of globalization” Prime Minister Tony Blair means that he wants to see us come together. He says that with combined imagination we could use or find the technologies that create energy without destroying our planet. Through this globalization he says that we could also provide work and trade without deforestation. With globalization we can finally be able to breathe new life into the Middle East peace process, something he views as a must.
After September 11th, countries around the world, including our own and the country in which Prime Minister Blair lives in, realized that one country can’t do it all. That is why he believes that we should use the power of the community to solve the problems we see in the world, the things we can’t do alone. He says that the state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world, but if we were to come together- use the power of the community- we could heal it with strong dedication and focus. Together we could sort out the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 3 million people have died through war or famine in the last decade. With will and effort, together the power of the community can do so much more.
Q2. Democrat John F. Kennedy proved to be a strong leader is his short time as President. As President he made a case for preemption. During the Cuban Missile Crisis he told Americans, “Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation’s security.” He told Americans that the greatest danger of all is to do nothing.
Also favoring preemption was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Three months prior to Pearl Harbor he warned the Nazis that the U.S. would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. More recently, President Bill Clinton was also a strong supporter of preemption. He wanted to see the U.S. remain ready if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction.
Q3. Alexis de Tocqueville saw many exceptional qualities in Americans. One was our vociferous democracy. He also saw our liking for voluntary actions and the intensity of our people’s religious belief to also be quite exceptional.
Q4. I do believe it will be a success if America is able to bring stability, prosperity, and even democracy to Iraq. I believe that once problems are solved in that country, the world as a whole will be a better place. Achieving stability, prosperity, and democracy in that country would be a success.
Q5. Truly I believe that deep down other countries don’t really fear American competence. It is my hope that they see the changes that need to be made in the world. They need to have confidence in the U.S. and its strength and ability to make a difference in the world.
Q6. If Americans were to hastily draw away from Iraq under pressure I do believe this would be irresponsible. We have already gotten involved and made a comment. We need to carry out our responsibilities.
Q7. It is our combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor that he feels will make us even stronger in the future.
Q8. Senator Feingold, Senator Byrd, and Senator Sarbannes all expressed concerns about expanding the process of the doctrine of preemption.
Q9. Senator Feingold states that preemption is knowing that an enemy plans to attack and not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing that another may possibly someday 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. I do agree with the Senator and his views on preemption and prevention.
Q10. I do not believe that we would live in a safer world. While the country who is practicing preemption would be safer, preemption would only create chaos where the other country is concerned. The people of that country would not be safe.
Q11. No, I do not. I believe that our values can mostly strongly thrive through simply striving to be the best country we can be. I think we should only act when placed in immediate danger, but only be prepared for action if we suspect something.
Q12. I believe such a world would be one in which terrorism withers.
Q13. It would keep something like September 11th from happening again.
Q14. That statement was made by Senator Byrd.
Q15. Senator Byrd voices several concerns through the form of questions. I agree with the question of what is going to happen to Israel? What is going to happen to the Palenstines? What is the image of the U.S. going to be? What are ramifications around the globe? What will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will others be encouraged to do the same?