Somerset Area Senior High School
Somerset, Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William Simmons

How America Saved (or destroyed) the World
Lindsay Blazin

Preemption has become a buzzword since the brutal attacks of September 11th.  It seems as though every American has been forced to consider the morality of waging war against Iraq under the pretense of the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.  The issue has been fiercely debated in newspapers, television shows, and on the floor of Congress.  Key questions have arisen from the countless hours of arguing and conceding:  When is it okay to strike preemptively?  How will policies of preemption affect America and the rest of the world?  Most importantly, who can be trusted to make these decisions?

America has been thrust into a position of world leadership either willingly or otherwise.  Our economic plans are reflected across the world and our freedoms are coveted by citizens of more restrictive nations.  Consequently, the decision we make in regards to preemptive doctrine will not be solitary and unimportant.  On the contrary, the example set by America on this volatile and controversial issue will be repeated in many parts of the world.  With this in mind, we must tread carefully when entering the territory of preemption; there will be no going back.

There are several points made in favor of preemption.  Many of these are seeded in fear.  For example, many people fear another attack like 9/11 and are willing to go to great lengths to avoid another day like that one.  Still others argue that had doctrines of preemption been in place in the years preceding World War II, Hitler would have been unable [to rise] to power.  While these fears are completely valid, nations do not thrive under legislated paranoia.

Other supporters of preemption dredge up facts and figures from years gone by hoping that history will strengthen their case.  It is true that many respected Presidents believed strongly in preemptive policies, even the Democrats.  Using history as a guide is perfectly acceptable and even conducive to producing educated and aware citizens.  However, growing nations cannot make new policies by simply recopying doctrines that worked in the past.  If America operated on such a system slavery would be in tact and women would still be shockingly silent.  Obviously, the past is not always the greatest teacher.

The cons of preemption seem evident to me.  From a strictly economic standpoint, preemption is expensive.  To go traipsing around the world chasing after every Middle Easterner … would be seriously damaging to the already mounting governmental deficits.  Also, a serious risk is posed in this situation by what law enforcement officials would call “copycats”: other nations that adopt a similar doctrine of preemption at some point in the future.  Imagine what the world would be like if we all thought preemptively.  America would receive reports about terrorist activity in Iran and begin planning a preemptive strike against that nation.  In the meantime, Iran finds out about our plans of attack and begins taking preemptive measures against [us].  And so it continues like that annoying riddle.  Which did come first?

Another negative side effect of preemption is the threat of world domination.  Globally, Americanization is something to be significantly feared.  For reasons yet unknown, many nations around the world seem to dislike, or even despise the American way of life.  No matter how ridiculous it seems we cannot write off the concerns of other nations without thoughtful consideration.  That would be horribly elitist and certainly not American.  It would also be un-American to force our way of life on any other nation whether they could use the help or not.  Certainly we would never want to impose like that.

So what, then, is a nation to do?  Should we sit on our hands while other countries plan our decline?  Or should we attack blindly on little more than a hunch and hope our gamble won’t result in disaster?  The answer, obviously, lies in the middle of these two extremes.  Nobody would suggest that our government ignore evidence of terrorist activity and wait for the other Husseins and Bin Ladens of the world to strike us down.  Such an idea is ridiculous and completely opposed [to] the bravery and proactive attitude we Americans hold in such high esteem.  What must be recognized and considered is that overzealous ideals and impatience can be just as detrimental to the United States as hesitation and inactivity. 

I believe that the only way a doctrine of preemption can be effectively enacted in America is through the successful collection of information by federal agencies created to do just that.  Taking action when presented with reliable evidence of clear and present danger is not only acceptable to but also demanded by the American people.  At this point, I would suggest that we bow graciously out of Iraq and invest the money we would lose there over the next decade in more fruitful endeavors.  One such endeavor would be co-sponsoring an international organization created to gather information related to the elimination of terrorism worldwide.  If that organization were properly funded I believe it would prove surprisingly capable of reliably reporting terrorism to the sponsoring nations.  With trustworthy information, preemptive attacks would go virtually unquestioned.  Those attacks would be even more acceptable to the global community if they were supported by a number of nations, not just the United States.

In conclusion, preemption cannot be carried out on a whim.  Time must be taken to hash out every issue in this mightily complicated debate.  Most importantly, the people of America must be given the opportunity to be heard on this critical point.  My grandchildren will experience the effects of this doctrine and the farthest reaches of the globe will feel its aftershocks.  As previously stated, we must tread carefully.  The future of the world really does lie in our hands.

Questions

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” refers to the worldwide conflict of balancing the needs of the global community while maintaining a distinct and independent nation.  As society continues to move forward technologically and otherwise, our world will continue to shrink.  As little as twenty years ago global entrepreneurship was practically unheard of.  Now small businesses that operate in spare bedrooms are making connections with markets halfway a round the world.  Society is changing and interdependence has become inescapable.  The only question that remains is what the citizens of the world will to will the powers inherent to this new worldwide community.

I believe that the powers of that community to do good are both unchecked and untapped.  Who better to promote ideas of world peace than the world as a whole?  How can we end world hunger without the cooperation of the farthest corners of the globe?  If used wisely the strength of this community could propel the peoples of the world into a quality of life yet unseen in history.

Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article.
Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt is cited in this article for his eloquent defense of preemptive actions.  Whitney also quotes Roosevelt’s metaphor for preemption that has been used time and time again in its defense: “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.”  

John F. Kennedy is mentioned in regards to his preemptive stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  He warned the citizens of America that it is no longer safe to wait until we are actually fired upon to fight back.  He also referred to the passive behavior of Hitler’s opponents and cited that passivity as a reason primary reason for World War 2.

Lastly, Bill Clinton is mentioned. Clinton argued in favor of preemption during the short-lived, highly effective Operation Desert Fox.  He also supported a strong military presence in Iraq and warned that is Saddam Hussein began compiling weapons of mass destruction again.

These three democrats were chosen because the current Democratic stance is against preemption.  These three presidents were chosen for their stark contrast to the Democrats we see today.  They take away the idea that preemption is a “republican idea.”

Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans.
Alexis de Tocqueville found the intensity of our religious beliefs, our fiercely democratic ideals, and our tendency to associate voluntarily to be strictly and uniquely American.

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 best for the world if America graciously bowed out of Iraq having dethroned the ruling menace and shown a war-ravaged people hope.  At that point the United Nations – the only organization with jurisdiction in the matter – could step in and create the best possible government in Iraq without making another America.  This would help to increase America’s popularity in the rest of the world, give the United Nations a much-needed opportunity to flex its diplomatic muscles, and give Iraq the government its people deserve.

However, it is most important that Iraq not be left in disaster.  If that were to happen, the country would revert back to its old defenses, namely Stalin-esque dictators, and the lives lost in battle would have been lost in vain.

 Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence?
This is a scary time for the rest of the world; a battle is being waged between two apparent evils.  On one side, the invasion of Iraq could be successful and yet another part of the world would succumb to the “American way.”  On the other hand, we could fail and leave an already unstable country completely destroyed.  However, the fear of American dominance must outweigh all other possible outcomes in both impact and longevity.  To become a nation of conquistadors would create long-lasting and far-reaching ramifications.  The world would undoubtedly view us as the snobby elitists many already think we are and any hopes of global community and peace would be severely dimmed. 

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?           
The difference between humility and irresponsibility lies in the aftermath of the withdrawal.  If the U.N. steps in and begins to shape the fledgling government, America will look to the rest of the world like a Good Samaritan stepping aside at the benefit of the “greater good.”  However, if America pulls out of Iraq and leaves the nation to its own devices we, and the rest of the world, will regret that mistake for generations to come. 

What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
America’s fiery tenacity and determination carries over into all areas of life.  Our economy will rebound, our foreign investments will flourish, and our involvement overseas will end in success.  This will happen because the American people want it to happen and once our resolve is set there is little that can stop us.  We are a nation of hard-workers and decisiveness.  We know what we want and we work to attain it.  Therefore, we will continually thrive as a nation inspiring jealousy in some lands and motivation to others.

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 differentiates between prevention and preemption based on the amount and reliability of information collected. Attacking with a high degree of certainty and reliable information about impending strikes would be considered preemptive and would not be viewed negatively by most Americans.  Problems arise when leaders confuse prevention and preemption and wage war based on sketchy tips and fear.  I believe the senator’s definitions are correct.  I feel that what Feingold would call “preventative attacks” must be restricted in order to protect the world from itself.  Imagine the vast amounts of chaos and violence that would erupt if all nations turned to such policies.

In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
As a pacifist and idealist I feel that preemption only seems viable when compared to prevention.  However, in light of recent events and current national policies I will admit that peace – while the only permanent solution – is not a realistic possibility at this time.

That said, I believe preemptive policies would make my world safer but not the world as a whole.  Would life be safer for the children of Iraq?  What about those in North Korea?  It is counterintuitive to believe that a world of more would be a safer world. On this point, I would have to follow my intuition.

In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive?
In order to answer this question, one must define our national values.  For simplicity’s sake I will discuss only three of the most fundamental ideals of America: justice, equality, and freedom.  Assuming that those are in fact the pillars of our nation, a world of preemption would not only stifle but completely annihilate our national beliefs.  How can justice grow in a world devoid of the due process of law?  Can it be considered equal to punish all people for the crimes of the ruler?  And what sort of freedom can exist in a world of fear and hatred?  Reckless use of preemptive doctrines will lead to the endangerment of all ideals, not only those dear to the heart of America.

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?
Since terrorism feeds, as the name implies, on fear and malice a world abounding with these characteristics would be the perfect breeding ground for terrorism.  The eradication of terrorism worldwide must begin at home.  This means the United State must take strides to remove any methods rooted in hatred from the international arsenal of our country. 

Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
A doctrine of preemption is an irreversible and decisive stand against terrorism and its power over the world.  It is also a means, at least initially, of protecting the American people from potential aggressors.  Lastly, preemption presents an opportunity, though certainly not a guarantee, to rid the world of one source of violence and hatred. 

Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.”? What was the context?
James Madison spoke these words in reference to the power of the presidency, a power too great for one man to handle alone.  Legislatures and the system of checks and balances were created to make sure “the trust” is always maintained and “the temptation” is always avoided.

Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.

·       It is dangerous for Senators and Representatives to follow the President simply because he is a member of the same political party.

·       Representatives are not adequately connected to the people they represent.

·       America’s reputation in the eyes of other nations will rise or fall depending on how we deal with the idea of preemption and Iraq.

·       It is imperative that we not stray from the Constitution at this important juncture in history.

·       Perhaps the $100 - $200 billion could be better spent elsewhere.

·       The support of the United Nations is critical.  We cannot do this alone.

Back