Somerset Area Senior High
School
Somerset, Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William Simmons
Prevent Preemption in Modern
Society
By Levi Hahn
September 11th marked a time in American and global history that has forever changed the way governments, particularly the United States government, view the policy of preemption. Many believe that the attacks of September 11th could have been prevented through means such as preemptive attacks against Al-Qaeda if we had knowledge of their plans. The United States seems to believe these claims and has been working to accomplish preemption now and in the future.
What is meant by preemption? Senator Russell Feingold described what he believes the difference is between preemption versus prevention in a Senate hearing on September 26, 2002. He described preemption as, "knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself." He then contends that, "prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds." According to Senator Feingold's definitions, the government of the United States has most certainly combined these two terms to create a policy of preemptive prevention. Preemption is no longer what Senator Feingold defined it as, but rather is the practice of using potential national security threats as justification to go to war. Unfortunately, Americans are widely accepting this redefinition because of the fear caused by September 11th and the promise that a new preemption doctrine will prevent future attacks of scale by terrorists.
In early 2003, George W. Bush pled his case for war with Iraq to the American people, allied countries, and the United Nations. He claimed that Iraq was a security threat to America because the Iraqi government was supposedly manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and therefore posed an imminent danger to the interests of the United States. Many American citizens and allied countries embraced the President's proposed war due to his claim that Iraq was involved with terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. These citizens and nations remembered the horrors experienced on September 11, 2001- less than two years prior to Bush's proposed military operation in Iraq. These Americans agreed with the President and decided that preemptive attacks were necessary to strengthen national security. Other American citizens, the United Nations, and many usual allies of the United States disagreed with George Bush's proposal, however. They claimed that there was not sufficient evidence that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction, nor were there indications that Iraq was a security threat to the United States. Ignoring these nations' opinions and pleas, George Bush and Congress allowed Operation Iraqi Freedom to take place.
This preemptive attack on Iraq left the country in shambles, and many of the Iraqi citizens with no shelter, family members, or even their own lives. In addition, Saddam Hussein's government was toppled, and he was captured by US forces. Most would agree that Hussein's departure from Iraqi ruler [was] a positive accomplishment because of his treatment of the citizens of Iraq. Unfortunately, the torture to which he subjected the citizens [was] emulated by [a few] US soldiers … serving in Iraq. Furthermore, not one weapon of mass destruction has been located by allied forces in Iraq. In other words, George Bush's sole justification for a preemptive attack has not … been proven. Iraq [was] destroyed for no apparent reason.
Additionally, one country should not believe that it has control over other countries. Iraq and the United States are two independent nations. Therefore, they are equals in the global community. The Bush administration seems to believe that the United States has supremacy over other countries and can dictate what those other countries do. This is false. The only governing force over countries is the United Nations, which has been ignored in regard to the Iraq war. A country does have a right to defend itself if attacked by another but never should a nation engage in a preemptive attack against [another] country.
The whole idea of preemption is based upon suspicion of another person or group. Imagine a scenario in which one person murdered another because he thought the person was planning to kill him first. He then justifies his actions with self-defense. Obviously, this would be deemed unacceptable by any reasonable person or court. So why should it be acceptable for a government to use the same justification? No person or group of people should ever be permitted to kill unless they are defending themselves against a party attempting to inflict harm or death upon them. Just because the two parties happen to be governments does not give either special privileges.
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?
A1-Prime Minister Tony Blair describes how nations will always act in their
own self interest, but that the international community should also act in the
interests of all countries. He calls the combination of these self and mutual
interests the politics of globalization. Furthermore, since globalization is
becoming increasingly evident in areas such as communication, we should accept
it but make sure it benefits us as a whole instead of just a few. In other
words, we should use the power of the community to make sure that global
ventures are fair to all.
Greaves Whitney
Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out
three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are
mentioned.
A2- Greaves Whitney cites presidents John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt,
and Bill Clinton in his article. John Kennedy is mentioned because he is the
most famous president who advocated preemptive attacks against aggressors of
other nations. He claimed that we should not allow bigger countries to bully
smaller countries into submission, but instead we should get involved before war
breaks out. Franklin Roosevelt also supported preemption. He said that countries
shouldn't look the other way when there is evidence that another country is
ready to attack. We should instead make the first move. Bill Clinton is
mentioned due to his Iraq policies. He started Operation Desert Fox against Iraq
and claimed that when the UN doesn't do its job properly (regarding weapons
inspections), the US would be there to use force.
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.
A3- Tocqueville admired Americans for their powerful democracy,
decentralization, and their kindness toward voluntary organizations.
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?
A4- It will be worse for the world either way because it will make America
appear as the sole world controller. If we succeed in bringing stability to
Iraq, it will make us more likely to launch asinine attacks in the future. If we
fail it will perhaps show us that we should mind our own business, but then the
Iraqi people are left with a ravaged and destroyed country.
Q 5- Is it American competence that
is feared, or incompetence?
A5- While both American competence and incompetence are feared, I believe
incompetence creates more anxiety than competence. News reports always show
deaths from friendly fire incidents and there are always problems with the
governments we set up in other countries. Foreign countries see these problems
and fear we will continue to do the same thing in yet more countries. And we do.
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?
A6-Although I believe it we should withdraw from Iraq immediately, it
shouldn't necessarily be under the pressure of attacks. It would definitely be a
sign of humility that the United States, which has the strongest military in the
world, could not control radicals in Iraq.
Q 7- What is it about America that
the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
A7- The writer claims that demographic vitality and productive economic
vigor will make America stronger in the future.
Congressional Record
Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who
expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
A8- Senators Feingold, Sarbannes, and Leahy expressed concern.
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 describes preemption as the knowledge of the planning of an
attack by an enemy, but not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing
an enemy may attack, and using that as a justification to attack first. I must,
however, disagree with Senator Feingold. The US government called the attacks
against Iraq "preemptive attacks." Under Senator's Feingold's definition, they
are more like preventative attacks. Iraq never threatened the US, some simply
believe that they may attack.
Q 10- In your opinion, would the
world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer
world? Explain.
A10- Absolutely not! Obviously, countries should prepare to defend
themselves if they feel threatened. But never, under any circumstances, should a
country preemptively attack another country. It would be like someone saying he
murdered someone because he thought the other person was going to murder him
first.
Q 11- In your opinion, would such a
world be one in which our national values would thrive?
A11- No. We wouldn't have values in a nation that advocates the killing and
destruction of others based simply on suspicion.
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?
A12- Terrorists numbers would most certainly increase as the hatred of
America rose. We are already seen as conceited and supremacists. This attitude
would undoubtedly increase if we expanded our preemption policies.
Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor
the doctrine of preemption.
A13- One might favor the doctrine of preemption because smaller countries
are more able to stand up for themselves, justice can be achieved for those who
cannot fight for it, and national security is strengthened.
Q 14- Who said "The trust and the
temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context?
A14- James Madison said, "The trust and the temptation are too great for any
one man." Senator Byrd cites this quote meaning that representatives should not
always follow the president. If the president feels they will, he will develop a
despotic sort of power that will tempt him to do whatever he feels like, not
necessarily what is in the nation's best interest.
Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great
many concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the
Senator.
A15- I agree with Senator Byrd that representatives should maintain checks
and balances on the executive branch and not always grant the president what he
wishes. I agree that the Constitution does not allow for preemptive strikes
against other nations. We should be concerned with the price of attacks as well.
I agree America would be seen as a bully if we allow preemptive strikes in the
future. We should have let the United Nations decide whether or not to attack.
Lastly, I don't think we should establish a record of preemption that will
forever be engraved in our history.