Camden Central High School
Camden, Tennessee
Teacher: Wanda Allen
Preemption or Prevention?
By Samantha Coppola
12th grade
Across a vast ocean lies a distant threat. In a country of a tyrant or with a people of a different way of life, there thrives an animosity for another nation that is shrouded by rumors and whose basic and similar human goals and needs are distorted by the media and its own aggression. Is that animosity enough to warrant a preemptive attack? Can we shed blood for ignorance? An abundance of ignorance is dangerous in the hands of the powerful. In the hands of the weak, however, it can be dangerous in an indirect way. If dealt with improperly, its repercussions may hurt economies and international relations, increase terror, and cause further distrust in already unfriendly nations. What kind of action should be used to dismantle threats and finding which way is appropriate and best for each situation is a tricky thing, and one that is even harder if a country decides to stand alone without much thought to the international community.
Throughout history we can see governments' attempts at preventing war. Some were more disastrous than others, and most had other reasons than self-defense for the moves that were made. Sometimes preemptive strikes really weren't preventions of war, but rather were made in order to have the upper hand in the beginning of an already inevitable war, such Britain and France declaring war on Germany when it took Poland but had not yet struck them. For them it was too late for preventive moves. When the enemy is strong and openly aggressive preemptive strikes are necessary.
In cases in which the enemy is strong but has not made any threatening moves, a preemptive strike would merely be an embrace to war and prove disastrous. This was the situation during the Cold War. Had either side struck, the effects on both sides could have been horrendous. Preemption was out unless a coming attack was absolutely known. Preventive talks were the only way to calm tensions and keep war at bay, such as was the case in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In the recent situation between America and Iraq the circumstances were different. Iraq was not another powerful nation. The threat to America was not immediate. The attack on Iraq was not one that was preemptive to war. Instead it was an attempt to limit the amount of bloodshed that might come some time in the distant future. It was a form of prevention. The effects: terrorist strikes within the country, waning international trust, and another blow to an institution that is key to forming a better global community. For the people of Iraq life may become better than it was under Saddam. If but for this, the war could not be justified. Animosity towards America has not decreased, so while a larger threat is gone a smaller one still remains and could perhaps grow if not handled properly.
Preemptive strikes, such as the one in Iraq, are not the way to stabilize the world. Perhaps action would have needed to been taken, but not then and not with a snub to the rest of the world. Powerful countries influence the rest of the world whether they mean to or not. If America engages in preemptive strikes, then other countries may feel that they are justified in doing so as well. How could America ask Israel to try negotiations with the Palestinians when it only touches on them itself?
As mankind passes into tomorrow and our ambitions and curiosity lead to more and more technological developments, we need to shed the ancient way in which countries have dealt with one another. Every nation is faced with similar threats and have similar goals as their neighbors. As our gadgets become modernized, we must also modernize our international relationships or choose to live in a world that could easily fall into chaos. The United Nations is one of the best tools for modernizing the world. It is by far not a perfect institution, but it is still young in the scheme of things. Once countries can see its worth and stop using it as an instrument to use to pursue their own selfish needs, great things can be accomplished. The best way to prevent war is by engaging in peace talks to handle disputes from early on in a conflict. The U.N. creates a neutral setting for these discussions and can provide pressure from other countries to settle the conflict peacefully and stick to resolutions.
Of course war cannot always be prevented and preemptive attacks are needed. When countries work together on it, though, the reconstruction is easier and the global effects not quite so bitter. The conflict in Kosovo is a good example of this. We worked together to stop an evil of the world. It was an agreed upon, needed action. War is not something enter into freely, but is a last resort.
Many times in our world's history nations made promises to work for peace. They did so in the Quadruple Alliance, the League of Nation, and the United Nations whose charter opens with "We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind..." What is it going to take to make us stick with it? What horrors do we have to endure before it hits us that the struggle for peace, as hard and trying as it may be, is by far the most able thing to carry mankind through the ages? Only by working together will we be able to preserve mankind.
willing to trade or invest, and without other nations supporting the preemptive strike the financial burden can drain the nation. The country would be weakened. Money for education and social security, among other things that may end up being sacrifieced for the cause, is also another concern. The country may be safe from outside threats, but the country would still suffer domestically if these important needs are not met. Then there is also safety at home in our own country to think about. We focus our attention overseas instead of fixing the violence at home. Senator Bryd, for example, spoke of the sniper shootings. The threats and problems that are here in front of us are left unattended as we focus on the less immediate problems abroad.
The attack was meant to accomplish, but it would also be a wrong committed on the Iraqi people and the rest of the world who had no real say in the preemptive attack to begin with. America owes something to the people. America can not run when its finger is pricked and allow the lesser equiped Iraqi people to bleed opeanly. They increased the chaos of the people lives; they must remedy it. It is not a question of humility but finishing what you start.
Questions
Q 1- What does the Prime Minister mean by the "politics of globilization"? He wants to use the "power of community" to do what?
Everyone wants in on the profits of globilization. Everyone wants to be stronger. If they are profiting from it, then it is viewed as good no matter what. If they gain nothing from it, then they point out and magnify all of the negative effects. Other countries have to be let in on the spoils to keep them from ruining it for others. It is the "you rub my back; I'll rub yours" scenario. This is the politics of globilization.
The Prime Minister wants to use the power of community to allow countries to work together to protect themselves from threats that they are all subject to; from terrorism, from disease, from environmental problems, problems that will cause the entire world to suffer if not fixed. He wants nations to work together for the good of all, not just themselves. It would be something that would happen if countries were enlightened to the power of community or able to juggle the politics of globilization.
Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic Presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton are singled out by Geaves Whitney, because he is trying to show that the use or want of use of preemption is not a new development nor is it merely a Republican trademark. Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Clinton all made it clear during their presidencies that they would use preemptive strikes if the need were to arise or in fact did resort to it. Whitney shows that preemption is part of America's history to an extent and so cannot just be thrown out as some radical new idea.
Q 3- Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
He found the qualities of voluntary association, strong religious beliefs, and their decentralization all exceptional.
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?
Overall it will be better if America succeeds. For such a powerful nation to bring a third world country to prosperity and give its people more freedom through democracy, would show the world that the country threat affects the entire planet can bring something good to them as well, and that its missions are not something to fear entirely. By showing the world that America can bring good to a country, other nations may be more willing to help in further missions and be more willing to challenge their own corrupt governments. Together the nations could make the lives of everyone better. If America were to fail it would make such an ideal attempt look like to great of a risk.
Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
What is feared is competence. America is one of the most powerful nation in the history of mankind. We know this, and other countries know this. By continuing to show its competence, America cements the fact that all of the world is affected by it. This can make other countries feel edgy. Not only is their culture threatened by commercialism to fall into American fads, but they may also be uncertain of its political whims. Today America may say that it has the right to defend itself in a certain situation, and the next day it may be intolerable. American competence makes them and their ways of life more defenseless to it, and they have little say in it.
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?
Such an act would be entirely irresponsible. America cannot throw one corrupt government out only to allow another to come in. Not only would it not truly remedy the security problem that the attack was meant to accomplish, but it would also be a wrong committed on the Iraqi people and the rest of the world who had no real say in the preemptive attack to begin with. America owes something to the people. America can not run when its finger is pricked and allow the lesser equipped Iraqi people to bleed openly. They increased the chaos of the people lives; they must remedy it. It is not a question of humility but finishing what you start.
Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
He believes that its growing and vital population and its fierce productive attitude will make the country even stronger.
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Senator Bryd, Senator Feingold, and Senator Sarbannes showed concern over expansion of the document.
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 described preemption as not waiting to defend oneself when it is known that an enemy plans to attack. Prevention is the belief that the enemy may attack sometime in the future and using force in the present to keep it from happening. In preemption a coming attack is known. In prevention their is no solid information suggesting an attack. Other than by the use of force, diplomacy and economic means can also be used in prevention.
I am in agreement with Senator Feingold's definitions. I see prevention as never giving someone the means to do some thing. Preemption would be getting them before they get us. We see them about to strike, so we make the first move. Preemption also seems to deal more with military action, while military action is only one of the many ways to prevent something.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries all engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
Even when we consider the differences between preemption and prevention, preemption would still not make the world safer if the most powerful countries took part in it. First of all we must consider false information. Who gets to determine how much information is needed to determine that there is a real threat? Do we have to see the missile pointed at us, or is one source who saw it pointing in our direction two days ago enough? Where is the line drawn? Next we have to consider how other countries will react. Will they feel threatened and turn against us? Perhaps another powerful country would go on less information than us and attack us. It could have easily have happened in the Cold War, and without a doubt that wouldn't have made the world safer.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be in which our national values would thrive?
In such a world our national values would not thrive, though we might allow ourselves to believe that they would. If all countries took part in their own preemptive strikes there would be chaos. To truly allow such ideals to thrive, they must be spread through peace and cooperation among nations, not a world in which countries feel weary of one another because the world is ruled by a preemptive policy, which would eventually turn into a military prevention one because international trust would have dwindled. Our ideals cannot thrive in such a chaotic and suspicious 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?
Terrorists would increase in numbers. Those who did not see us, or some other nation as a threat before the preemptive strikes then would. Some people who turn to terrorism do so in desperation. They see talks and negotiations not working. They see a country that they've heard often in the past to be pushy and wanting to force its ways on them. They know only their world and not that of attacking nation. Then they see those who were already terrorists, fighting this invading beast. They see that now they have basically the same goals as the terrorists, so in desperation they join them. The number of people turning to terrorism will only increase as they see the rumors of the invading nation seem to come true because it involves itself in one preemptive strike after another.
Q 13-Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
It is the government's duty to protect its citizens, not merely from domestic threats but from ones abroad as well. Sometimes talking nicely and negotiating with the enemy is not enough to cause a change of heart in them. They may be subdued temporarily through talks, but at times it is not enough. Again and again they may threaten another nation. When do you say enough? How can a country or group that is constantly showing that it is willing to attack be trusted? If the government's duty is to protect the people, it can't be very effective if it allows such threats to go on and on and forever have to adjust its policies because another nation or leader is willing to commit inhumane acts.
Q 14- Who said that "The trust and temptation are too great for any one man"? What was the context?
James Madison said this in regard to the need to have a government in which power is limited and under a system of checks and balances . The government was constructed as it is to keep anyone from becoming power crazy and going against the will of the people. In the reading Senator Byrd quoted Madison. Byrd felt threat as a representative of the people he should not just merely follow the president in his decisions but go by what he thinks is best and truly try to be a representative of the people. The Senator does not want to follow the President in his Iraq Resolution just because he is the president. If that were to happen the President could abuse his powers.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
Like Senator Byrd, I feel that the nations must create a strong global community to combat the world's problems. By engaging in preemptive strikes, we distance our selves from countries that may be against them. When we decide that we are going to go it alone, we damage needed international relationships. Another shared concern is that by taking part in preemptive strikes others may feel that it is alright for them to do so as well. Another country may feel that a preemptive strike is necessary when the threat is slight. The world would become filled with disorder as more and more countries become involved in their own preemptive strikes. In the hands of some it may become very dangerous for the world.
There could also be an increase in the number of preemptive strikes by terrorists. Our own preemptive strikes could strengthen the idea that we are a pushy nation that cannot be trusted. It would reinforce in their minds that we are a threat to their ways of life and one that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, because we may strike at any time.
Preemptive strikes can also hurt the economy. People may be less willing to trade or invest, and without other nations supporting the preemptive strike the financial burden can drain the nation. The country would be weakened. Money for education and social security, among other things that may end up being sacrificed for the cause, is also another concern. The country may be safe from outside threats, but the country would still suffer domestically if these important needs are not met. Then there is also safety at home in our own country to think about. We focus our attention overseas instead of fixing the violence at home. Senator Bryd, for example, spoke of the sniper shootings. The threats and problems that are here in front of us are left unattended as we focus on the less immediate problems abroad.