Somerset Area
Senior High
Somerset, Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William Simmons
Prevention or
Preemption
By
Andrew Lyon
One of the most important principles on which our country was founded is the desire to avoid war at all cost and only take military action when we have been attacked. Indeed our first president George Washington urged the nation to avoid war altogether for many years until the country had been established. However, unfortunate as it may be, recent events such as the rise of terrorism and especially the attack on the United States on 9/11 have forced president George W Bush to temporarily set aside these ideals and take action to combat the evil that currently threatens peace in our world.
These actions have caused the president to come under a great deal of criticism from his political adversaries both at home and abroad. Some people feel that President Bush has abandoned our country’s long standing tradition of solving conflict through diplomacy instead of military force. They feel that the problem should have been left up to the United Nations to deal with, as they have in the past, by passing resolution after resolution politely asking Saddam Hussein to stop oppressing his people and producing chemical and biological weapons.
This approach was doomed to fail just as it did in the months before World War Two when the countries of Europe adopted a policy of appeasement to deal with the military advances of Adolph Hitler. That strategy proved to be a tragic mistake for the allies as Hitler continued to gain ground and invade countries until those countries that were left decided to fight back. This example proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that political despots such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to remain in power indefinitely. That is why the United States’ invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam from power was not only justified, it was necessary.
This is not to say that The United States should by any means abandon diplomacy altogether. Indeed many conflicts throughout our nation’s history have been resolved without resorting to military action. Perhaps the greatest example of our nation’s tradition of peaceful conflict resolution was the Cold War and subsequent collapse of Communism. This series of events was a testament to America’s ability to endure tough challenges by peaceful means.
However, in this new millennium America is faced with a new enemy. … This enemy is terrorism. It is unlike any foe we have faced before. It does not reside in any specific location. It does not have a certain appearance or mode of operation. In fact [it] can take the form of anyone, anywhere. This enemy came to the forefront of American interest when terrorists hijacked 4 passenger planes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in nearby Shanksville Pennsylvania. This attack on American soil prompted immediate and decisive action on the part of America. The United States government initiated a far reaching campaign to seek out those who committed the atrocious acts … and stop the efforts of terrorist throughout the world ….
The recent military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism serve to send a strong message to the world. Anyone who supports and does not actively condemn terrorism of any kind will be considered dangerous enemies of the United States and forced to cease their support by any means necessary.
Lawmakers and foreign Heads of State have voiced many valid concerns about the preemptive strategy utilized in the War On Terror. One of the most valid concerns is the message that is being sent to other countries. The fear is that rogue nations may attack weaker nations under the guise of stopping terrorism. Many Americans believe that these strikes fuel the already growing hatred of Americans throughout the world. Although this has been the case in some instances, many … citizens of the countries where The United States has ousted terrorist regimes are extremely grateful to be rid of their tyrannical dictators.
Any action that is taken will most definitely be unpopular to some people. Whether we like it or not, America is a leader in today’s world and sometimes, for the good of society, leaders have to do things that are not always popular. We might make some enemies in the process and we may have to suffer some economic consequences. But in the end America must take the lead and do what is ultimately right.
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?
The politics of globalization is the
process of getting the countries of the world to worry less about their own self
interest and work for a safe planet. He wants to combine globalization with
justice.
Greaves Whitney
Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three
Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are
mentioned.
Pres. John F. Kennedy supported
preemption during the Cuban Missile Crisis
Franklin Roosevelt supported a preventive strike to stop the Nazis.
Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox to warn Saddam not to use wmds in
1998
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.
Vociferous Democracy,
decentralization, intense religious beliefs
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?
If it succeeds
Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared,
or incompetence?
Competence
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?
Devestatingly irresponsible act
Q 7- 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
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed
concern about expanding the doctrine
of preemption.
Feingold, Byrd, Sarbannes
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.
Preemption is knowing that an enemy
plans an 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. I do not agree with the senator
because the government had much evidence that Iraq would have used weapons of
mass destruction.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which
the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
I believe that countries with a lot
of power have a responsibility to make the world a safer place for everyone in
any way they can and preemption is one possibility
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values
would thrive?
I believe that preemption is only
used in cases where our national values are in great danger and thwarting this
danger can only be positive.
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 believe that as long as there are hateful people in the world terrorism
will exist and the best way to stop them is to attack them on their own ground
so America can stay safe.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the
doctrine of preemption.
Saving lives at home, avoiding long
conflict minimizing casualties.
Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation
are too great for any one man."? What was the context ?
James Madison talking about the
power of the president.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many
concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the
Senator.
What will the image of the United States be?
How much will the war cost?
How many lives will be lost?
Will other countries want to do preemptive strikes?
Will there be retaliation?
What will it do to national security?