Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention?
How Have Governments Prevented War in the Past
and What Should Be Their Approach In The Future?
By Mandy Green
12th grade
Many times preemption and prevention are used interchangeable. Preemption is knowing that an ally is planning to attack you and not waiting till after a strike to protect yourself. In this case there is usually much evidence. On the other side, prevention is thinking that somebody may possibly attack you at some time, and justifying the immediate use of force on those reasons. It is the difference between having information that there is a planned attack and not having that information or evidence. Both of these have been used in order to try to prevent war at some point of time.
I think the easiest way to avoid a war or terrorist attack is through prevention. In today’s world it is easy for some types of people to get weapons of mass destruction. The bad thing is these weapons are nearly impossible to defend yourself against. A major cause of war is collective social stress. To continue peace, war must be addressed at this level. India could prevent war and end conflict by reducing social stress through the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. Perhaps India could learn from Mozambique's example of 1992. Mostly you can tell a government’s or country’s social and political standards based on their humanitarian relief, their willingness to comply with other countries’ agreements and level of concern for peace.
Another way for any government to prevent war is to avoid having enemies, tensions, stress, etc. This makes perfect sense because without an enemy there is not a war. However, in many cases having an enemy can be impossible to prevent. So, the government must turn to other means in order to prevent war. There are several approaches to prevent war that governments have tried. Some of them have been successful, but some have not.
The American government has prevented war in the past by refusing economic trade with any country that conducted themselves in any way that was threatening peace to the United States government. For example, recently with the terrorist attacks of the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001, the United States government was forced to take action. After investigation America has come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible. It was strongly believed that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and linked to al-Qaeda terrorists. The leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was considered a threat in that he was capable of using these weapons. Therefore, America ceased buying their oil supply from Iraq. This cuts off money and supplies they may get from the U.S. to their country and it puts a strain on their economic growth.
One way the United States helps avoid war is by having such a strong military force. Many countries fear the American military because they are so strong and powerful. Each area of the military, such as the Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy, National Guard, etc. has high enrollment listings. The American troops are ready and willing to do their job, which is to fight for their country. The United States government also takes very good care of the military by providing them with many benefits for the troops and their families to enhance its numbers. This strength in numbers has eliminated the need for the drafting of soldiers which in past times has been enforced.
Sometimes a country will try to invade their enemy’s homeland and take over their governments. Sometimes they are successful, but many times they are not. This happens when a country is believed to be extremely weak in numbers, lacks a sound economy, and has an inferior military or an unsupported government.
In order for a country to prevent war in the future I think that the government should take care of a problem before it gets out of hand, for example, the incidents with President George Bush, Sr. and his son President George Bush, Jr., who is now president. President George Bush, Sr. had a conflict with Iraq as President a few years ago. If he had taken an extra step to remove Saddam Hussein from power when he was in power there is a great chance that the horror of New York City and the other events of 9-11 would have been avoided. This is why I believe that prevention is crucial in preventing a war. If George Bush, Sr. would have stopped him then we would not be where we are today, in war.
As far as new ways that the government could prevent a war, I do not believe I know of anything else besides taking care of things earlier. The government in the United States is doing a wonderful job by attempting to end this war with Iraq and return all our troops home safely. I believe they are handling it the best way possible considering what has happened in our country on and since September 11, 2001.
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?
He is saying that the major events all over the world should be interest to each person and each government because at some point it will have an effect on that government and that person. He wants to use the “power of community” to benefit all people everywhere.
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, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton are the three presidents that Greaves Whitney mentions in his article. They are mentioned because they took public defenses of preemption.
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 mentioned America’s strong religious belief, voice of democracy, and the favor of voluntary organizations.
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 even democracy to Iraq because quality of life is better than before.
Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
America’s incompetence is feared, which is a normal reaction at such times as these.
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?
I think it would be a sign of a devastatingly irresponsible act because the president feels it is his duty to disarm such powers.
Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
It is the type of economic, social strengths, and a political stand that makes America “one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right.”
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Senator Feingold, Senator Byrd, and Mrs. Murray express 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 says preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. He defines prevention as believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. He says it is the difference between having intelligence that a country may negotiate with another country to provide them with weapons of mass destruction or worrying that someday the country may engage in these negotiations. Yes, I agree with him. I believe he gives a very good definition for both words and he gives good examples to defend himself. After looking at definitions in the dictionary and comparing them to Feingold’s definition I agree with his explanation.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
I would have to say yes because if you wait to defend your country when you suspect an enemy is going to attack, you may risk the chances of being able to defend your country. If you don’t act immediately, you may be too late. They may attack quickly before you have time to protect yourself. An attack always comes unsuspected; so, when attack is suspected you should always be ready to defend.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
I believe that it would because they would shoulder the responsibility of right and wrong at all costs.
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?
I think such a world would be one in which terrorism would wither due to the great fear of retaliation.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
Congress could recognize clear and present dangers; take military action thus preventing surprise attacks.
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.” This means that we should realize that the president is only one man, who we should stand behind and support; however we should realize that he can not make important decisions by himself. He needs the help of Congress. For example, the president does not vote in that we go to war. We should always keep in mind that he is human, just like each and everyone of us.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
I agree with Senator Byrd’s first concern which states that there is no king in the American scheme of things. This means that no one person can rule America or make all the decisions. In America we vote for things and in most situations the majority rules. Another concern of his that I agree with is that there is no place for weakness. I believe that in the United States there is only time for progress and dedication to the country. I also agree with his point that we must always stand behind what we believe and not what a certain party or important figure thinks. We should always have our mind set on what we think and not simply follow the crowd. A fourth concern I agree with is his comment about standing by the Constitution of the United States for every word that is in it. The United States was based on the Constitution; therefore, I believe that we as Americans should always follow what it says. We should stand for what it says we should stand for. Another concern he had was if other nations would be encouraged to also have a preemptive strike. I think this would be something that is very important and should be considered. A last concern Senator Byrd had was how much the preemption strike would cost in dollars. This is very important because we have to figure out how to get this money. Where it would come from? Whose pocket it would come out of?