Prevention or Preemption?
By Jon Davies
Somerset Area High School
Somerset, Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William
Simmons
Prevention or Preemption?
By Jon Davies
Throughout history, the United States grew to be the most powerful nation in the entire world. It seems only rational that the President of this country would do anything in his power to protect the citizens who work so hard to keep it what it is today. This brings up the topic of preemptive strikes. Though terrorist attacks are rare in America, our liberties and freedoms that define the United States have been questioned several times whether one goes several decades back to the attack on Pearl Harbor, or the most recent tragedy that took place on September 11th. The question at hand is whether or not our President should be permitted to walk our troops into any country we see as a threat and take immediate military force. Although both sides of the debate bring up extremely relevant and rational arguments, I must say that, in my opinion, preemptive strikes would only create more problems for the United States.
Let us first take a look at the positive points of preemptive strikes. I’m sure that in twenty years, every person that I know today will remember exactly where they were sitting, exactly what they were doing, and exactly how they were feeling when they watched on the television screen as airplanes taken over by terrorists threatened the stability of this nation beyond belief. It was truly one of the most horrifying experiences of my entire life, and as I sat there and watched three buildings go tumbling to the ground, the only question that was going through my head was why? How could a man walk untouched onto an airplane and fly it straight into a building killing countless innocent citizens? How could our President not foresee the events that would change our history dramatically forever? In this case, a preemptive strike may have created some intelligence to what was going on and prevented such a horrendous attack from occurring. September 11th truly proved to America that we are by no means untouchable and something must be done to stop any such event from occurring ever again. Preemptive strikes are also a positive thing, because Americans would no longer have to live in fear. Any time a threat to our country was foreseen, Americans would be assured that any action would take place to prevent the attack from happening making America a safer and happier place to live. Although I agree there are some strong points to be made for preemptive strikes, I just can’t see the pros outweighing the cons in this ongoing debate.
Sure, America has made the reputation for itself as being the most powerful nation in the world in every aspect of life, but during no point in history did America use its power to enter an unknown territory and kill at will. When looking at the word preemption, one must consider that a preemptive attack can take place simply for a small suspicion that a country is planning to use whatever weapons it might have for terrorist purposes. Who’s to say that a country doesn’t own weapons of mass destruction simply for protective reasons? I’m pretty sure that America owns weapons of mass destruction, but I don’t see eastern countries marching into the United States and killing everything in sight simply because of a slight suspicion that we might be using them for attacks on others. Also, if the United States began to preemptively strike out at countries any time we felt necessary, I’m almost positive that the only thing that could come out of the strike is war. No country will simply stand back and let hundreds of thousands of their people die and not do anything about it. Preemptive strikes would also not just be killing hundreds of thousands of their soldiers, but hundreds of thousands of our soldiers as well. Too many innocent lives have already been lost in this continuing battle with the middle-east, and preemptive strikes will do nothing but sky rocket that number to outrageous counts. I am completely all for protecting the people of this country, but by no means do more people need to die when the only reason they might be dying is because of a mere suspicion that some country might have weapons of mass destruction and might be planning on attacking us with them.
So it’s really quite easy to see some of the positive and negative points regarding the topic of preemption. However, in my opinion, I’m not even really sure why it is an argument. I believe that it is easy to see how the negative points of these strikes would completely outnumber the positive points. Everyone is only given one chance on this Earth, and nobody needs to die simply because of a mere suspicion.
Questions
Q1-What
does the Prime Minister mean by "politics of globalization"?
He wants to use the
"power of community" to do what? The
prime minister is simply saying that several of the countries must take on
globalization as a whole community or it will be impossible.
Q 2-
Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name
them and explain why they are mentioned.
The three presidents were Franklin
Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. FDR was mentioned because of his
quote about the rattlesnake in favor of preemption. JFK was mentioned for his
quoting stating that the U.S. couldn’t simply sit back and accept deliberate
threats to our country. Bill Clinton was mentioned because
Q 3-
Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three
qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
“Its vociferous democracy, it’s
liking for voluntary associations, and the intensity of its people’s 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?
It will be better because “hope will
be restored and danger will be dispelled.”
Q 5- Is
it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
American Competence
Q 6- If
America was to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would
that be a sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act?
A devastatingly
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.
Q 8- Name
three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of
preemption.
Senator Feingold, Senator Leahy, and
Senator Hagel
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 while prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. The difference is between having intelligence indicating that a country is in negotiations with an unquestionably hostile and violent enemy.” I disagree with the Senator because, as stated earlier in the reading, if preemption were granted, we could attack at any time without know if a country had any real intentions of using their 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.
No. I think if we were to single
out countries to have preemption while other countries were denied the right,
allies would be formed among the smaller countries, and war would ensue.
Q 11- In
your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would
thrive?
No
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? One in which terrorist recruits would increase daily.
Q 13-
Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
Preemption could prevent terrorist
attacks before they happen. Preemption would create a greater sense of security
for some of the people of the United States. Preemption could provide an
incentive for all possible threatening countries to stay away.
Q 14- Who
said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.” What was the
context?
James Madison. Senator Byrd used
this quote to say how he supports and stands behind George Bush; however, he
feels that the decision may be too much for one man.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
1. That the decision is too much for one man
2. It goes against the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land
3. There will be several thousands of casualties.
4. It will cost too much money.
5. Possible preemptive strikes by terrorists.
6. What will happen with Canada and Mexico?