Somerset Area High School
Somerset,
Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William
Simmons
Prevention or Preemption?
By Derrek Lyons
After the events of September 11, New York
City, Washington D.C., and Shanksville Pennsylvania all felt the effects of
terrorism. Since then, Congress has been constantly listening to the ongoing
debate about the matter of preemption. The United States has since gone to war
against Iraq mainly to dethrone and obliterate the regime that Saddam Hussein
[had] constructed. After terrorism was used as a means of attacking the United
States, we felt immediate action must be taken. Preemption was the only viable
option.
By taking preemptive action, the United States benefits in a multitude of ways. Preemptive action was to, and eventually did, counteract the major threat of continuing terrorist activity. In order to give compensation to the families of the victims injured and killed in the September 11 terrorist acts, going to war would give some form of retribution to those who were so badly devastated. Another reason preemption would benefit America is that it will save future lives. If action is not taken now, many lives will be lost in the future that could … potentially [be] saved.
There are a few disadvantages of preemption however. There will certainly be casualties from the ensuing war. Funding will also need to be taken into account. A great deal of money would be spent if the United States were to enter a war with Iraq.
Upon looking back in history, preemption seems to be a good idea. If European countries would have practiced preemption during Hitler’s reign, World War II may have been avoided, but the axis powers were allowed to grow and expand until the point of no return. What followed was the greatest catastrophe in world history: World War II. It is also possible that the events of September 11 could have been avoided if America had practiced preemption. We had Osama Bin Laden in 1993, but we let him run free from Saudi Arabia. If action would have been taken then, thousands of American lives could have been potentially saved, but because we did not heed the signs that were shown to us, the greatest tragedy on American soil took place.
If America does not take preemptive action, dire consequences will arise. We could be letting Iraq build up an army that could potentially end the lives of many more Americans…. A war against a prepared military is certainly not something the United States wants…. Secondly, if America takes no action against the terrorists … [it encourages them.] … Preventing terrorist activity [should be a] major [goal of] the United States….
With all of the facts on hand, it is easy to see what option should be chosen. By engaging in preemptive action, the United States will not only benefit …, but [may] eventually transform Iraq into a democracy that will hopefully flourish and prosper in the future. Do we not believe that expanding democracy, promoting strong economies, and creating peace throughout the world is a major part of American philosophy. By engaging in preemptive action, that is exactly what the United States would achieve.
In March of 2003, the Untied States engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It took only a few days before the capital city of Baghdad was taken and Saddam Hussein was captured. However, the United States involvement did not end just there. In order to promote peace and democracy and prevent any further terrorist activities, the United States set up a government that they believe will achieve the goals they set out to accomplish from the beginning. … Although the United States was right in beginning the war against terror in Iraq, [there will be a] time to give up the glory and let the United Nations do [its] job.
I believe that the actions taken by the United States were perfectly acceptable. Negative consequences were minimized and a series of positive events immediately followed. If the United States were to adopt a permanent doctrine of preemptive action, I believe that many deaths and disasters [would] be prevented. I would like to conclude with a quote from Franklin Delano Roosevelt promoting the idea of preemption: “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.”
Questions
What does
the Prime Minister mean by "politics of globalization"? He wants to use the
"power of community" to do what?
What Prime Minister
Blair means by the “politics of globalization” is that the demands of world
economy must be upheld and met, while nations must retain their independence and
individuality. The creation of the internet has greatly increased the global
economy. People from all over the world now interact with each other everyday
buying and selling their goods.
Prime Minister Blair wants to use the vigor of this community to help in the betterment of the world as a whole. By helping out whenever possible, and by using community resources, Mr. Blair believes communities have the ability to bolster the global economy and create a better market for the entire world.
Greaves
Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and
explain why they are mentioned.
1-Mr. Whitney
mentioned Bill Clinton in his article. Clinton strongly supported the idea of
preemption during Operation Desert Fox.
2-John F. Kennedy is also cited in Mr. Whitney’s article. Kennedy was cited because of his preemptive decisions regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy said that to wait until we are fired upon to begin fighting back would be a terrible mistake. Kennedy also tells of how World War 2 was caused by the pacifistic actions of the Europeans.
3-Finally, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is mentioned because of his incredibly famous quote regarding preemptive actions. Mr. Roosevelt said, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.” This keenly shows that preemption is an issue that should be looked upon by all citizens.
Greaves Whitney cited these three democrats, because the Democratic platform today does not side with preemption. Because these three prominent presidents did agree with the idea of preemption, Whitney is able to show that preemption is not only a republican idea.
Alexis de
Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities
de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
Tocqueville found that
Americans have extremely passionate religious beliefs, an incredibly democratic
method of thinking, and that we volunteer for many different things that other
countries would not even think about.
Will it
be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity
and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails?
The world would surely
be better if America would finally end its unwelcome stay in Iraq. America
should not be the body that tries to create a government in Iraq. The United
Nations was created for a reason. Let’s allow the body to do its job and create
a government and economy that will be better for the world instead of allowing
America to create what it thinks will be potentially a flourishing government.
Is America not currently instituting a regime of its own that they so forcefully
felt must be torn down in the past?
Is it
American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
America has certainly
received a message it never thought would come: we are the enemy. As America
tries to help countries around the world, our ideals are constantly being thrust
upon groups of people that do not have the same beliefs or the same customs as
the people who are trying to help them. This firmly supports the theory that
America has placed itself on a pedestal that is far higher than the rest of the
world. Incompetence definitely follows this blazed trail that America has been
creating. We cannot simply expect the rest of the world to convert to our own
American ways when they are certainly not American. By not stepping down from
the pedestal that was created a few decades ago, America will eventually find
itself thrust back against a wall with no where to run but home.
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 is not up to
America whether or not the act would show humility or irresponsibility, but up
to the rest of the world. If America simply pulls out of Iraq and the unstable
and potentially volatile government is left as it is, then America will seem to
the rest of the world as an irresponsible bully that only picks on the smaller
individuals until they are depleted of their resources and then moves on.
However, if the United Nations were to step in and help to create a stable and
unwavering government, then the actions of America would be looked upon as the
humble thing that benefited the rest of the world, and not just themselves.
What is
it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in
the future?
The determination of
the American people will lead it into an even more prosperous future. Because
Americans work so hard at everything they do, their economy seems to flourish at
home and over seas. If all the nations of the world showed as much
determination as the United States, then the global economy would also improve.
Name
three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of
preemption.
Senator Feingold,
Senator Byrd, Senator Leahy
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 makes
very clear that preemption and prevention are two totally different ideas.
Preemption is the act of attacking an enemy because a significant amount of
information is known about the enemy’s own military plans to attack.
Prevention, however, is simply attacking an enemy because we think that they may
possibly attack us. To confuse these two terms could lead to some very
dangerous times in the future. If preemption is accepted as a national
doctrine, and prevention is kept to a minimum, America will surely prosper in
the future.
In your
opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in
preemption be a safer world? Explain.
With the current
situation in the world right now, preemption would certainly make the world a
safer place, but what do we consider safe? If safe is never worrying about he
possibility of attack, then I believe the world will never be a safe place, but
if safer means fearing an attack less than normal, then the world would
certainly be safer.
In your
opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
Our values would
thrive only if the rest of the world were a democracy and only if the United
States was the only country practicing preemption.
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?
Terrorism would most
likely decline. It would not disappear for good, but surely it would be less
prominent.
Discuss
three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
Adopting a doctrine of
preemption would help to decrease the amount of terrorism in the world. Also,
preemption would most likely increase our homeland security. Preemption would
also prevent any more world wars from ever occurring.
Who said "The trust
and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context?
James Madison uttered
these famous words. Madison was trying to get across the point that the
presidency cannot be managed by one person alone. Checks and balances were
created for a reason: to make sure that one person does not abuse the powers he
or she has by being the president.
Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
1. The time it would take to make the doctrine effective
2. The amount of time the doctrine would remain effective
3. A preemptive strike could have devastating effects upon the international community
4. America’s reputation may be damaged if preemptive assaults begin to be commonplace
5. The amount of money it would cost to constantly maintain the doctrine and its ideals
Members of Congress should not follow the president simply because they are of the same political party.