Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Mrs. Wanda Allen
Use Force Before Force Takes Us
Kyla Carter
12th Grade
A subject that has often been discussed throughout the years is preemption or prevention. In times of war, there should never be the decision of whether to sit around and wait for your country to be attacked or whether you should take action before there is ever any indication that something is going to take place. You should be the first to act upon any potential for any kind of attack on your country. This direct and aggressive approach is called preemption.
The Preemption Doctrine states that there must be a current and credible risk to our security, and there must be a growing trend of dangerous behavior to be considered a threat upon which we should act. It is our right to prevent a tragedy once the above two are linked. For example, given the more than ample evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, the capability to create more, the will to use them, and the connections to groups who have the desire to use them, we should not wait around on them to use their sources. Knowing this, Iraq is a credible and current threat and qualifies for preemption. President Bush has used this preemption doctrine by sending U. S. troops to Iraq to help maintain a secure government before something worse than the tragedy of September 11th could take place. But not all people believe that preemption is always the answer. Some think that preemption is a blue print for continued world domination by the military. They also think that it is a foolhardy plan that will take this nation into places it should not go. It will make enemies of this nation where they should be friends and it will make friends into enemies sooner than we should. The wise course of action for a powerful nation is to use its power sparingly, in measured amounts and use it as a last result. The Bush Doctrine of Preemption goes beyond the definition it has set and beyond the generally accepted standard for nations. This Administration has broadened the meaning Preemption to include preventive war where force may be used without any indication that an imminent attack is to occur to ensure that a serious threat to the United States does not gather or grow over time.
21 years ago, Israel exercised preemptive action when its planes bombed Iraq's nuclear research facility. Israel justified their actions by claiming Iraq would produce nuclear weapons that threatened Israel. But the United Nations, including the US, strongly condemned Israel. Now, however, we have positioned and fashioned the United States the same way and on the same military posture as Israel, using the September 11th attack to rationalize the new doctrine.
Such a doctrine does not allow any nation to develop a weapon system in their own land or in the land of another for defense or offense. If America decides that the developing nation is a threat to us or that at some time in the future it may threaten us, we can use preemption. The use of preemption in this type of case presents the question of whether it is okay to use force against these nations when they may actually mean no harm to us. Should we bomb them or send troops to their countries and kill them when we really don’t have to? If there is no evidence suggesting an attack on us at the present time, why should we worry about it? The reason we should worry about it is because they might not be doing any harm to us now, but in the future they might do more harm if we don’t stop them.
The other use of military force that is not so straight forward is the preventative approach. This is believing that another country may possibly attack, then justifying the use of force on those grounds. An example where the United States used the preventative approach is when the United States decided to wait until we had sufficient information about the Japanese to take action. Three months later, under the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Hawaiian Islands were bombed severely in what was known as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many men, women, and children were killed without any idea what was hitting them. This sudden strike against the U.S. was the result of not using the preemption doctrine. Many lives could have been spared if we had taken action to prevent the hostility that happened on December 7th.
I believe that the preemption doctrine is the best approach to solving the nation’s everyday problems. Using the preemptive approach, we can maintain our high standing as a dominant country and prevent any attacks that may occur in the future. I think it is okay to kill a few men to get our point across rather that have thousands of our men killed.
Questions
What does the Prime Minister mean by “politics of globalization”? He wants to use the “power of community” to do what?
He means that it is of our own best interest and financial stability as a whole to do what is best for our country. He wants us to combine globalization with justice by power of the community.
Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
Greaves uses John F. Kennedy to show that during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy saw the aggressive action as something that needed to be handled before it leads to a war. He uses Franklin D. Roosevelt to show that before the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt warned the Nazis that the U. S. would not overlook the buildup of armed forces or weapons. He also has a famous metaphor about a rattlesnake that shows that he meant what he was saying. Bill Clinton was used to show in his Operation Desert Fox, that we would keep a strong military in the area and we would also use them if we needed to.
Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name the three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
Alexis de Tocqueville liked the way that America had a vociferous democracy, decentralization, a liking for voluntary associations, and the intensity of its people’s religious belief.
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 because the Iraq would know that we are a world power and not to mess with us because we helped them get back on their feet after their hard time.
Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
It is competence because we are a large nation and we have made many sound decisions in the past and will continue making them in the future.
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 probably be from an irresponsible act because America has done so much in Iraq already that there is nothing to be humiliated about.
What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
The combination of demographic vitality and productivity – led economic vigor.
Name three U. S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
The U.S. senators that expressed this were Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Byrd.
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 someday attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. The difference is between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity. Yes, I agree. I think that action should be taken on the first sign of a possible attack.
In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
Yes. That type of country would always have a strong military and be ready for anything. These types of countries would make the world safer.
In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
Yes. Without our national values, what would our nation and our government stand for? We should always defend our values.
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 definitely be one with withered terrorism because there is no need for terrorism. If a person doesn’t like that way a country is run, then go to live in another country where you like their ways.
Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
Preemption will make our relationship with allies better, benefit our national security, and will help with world peace in many regions.
Who said “The trust and the temptation are too great for only one man.”? What was the context?
James Madison. He means that all the things that go with being president are too great for one man.
Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the senator.
I believe we should follow the president whether he is Democratic or Republican, there is no place for weakness, we should stick with the constitution, we should think for ourselves, we should stand steadfast, and we should live by the spirit of the constitution.