Somerset Area High School
Somerset, Pennsylvania
Teacher: Dr. William
Simmons
Prevention or Preemption?
By Michael Barbera
Today’s world is full of many choices, and for every choice there are consequences. Such is the ongoing debate in Congress about preemptive action. In the past three years, the preemptive spotlight has been shining brightly on the country of Iraq. After the tragedies in New York City, Washington D.C., and Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, the United States launched a war on terror that put Iraqi regime on the hit list. For years the dictator [had] oppressed his people and has been a source of turmoil within the Middle East. …
According to United States intelligence, the Iraqi regime is closely tied with terrorist groups. [We believed] there [was] evidence that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction [and so] we … determined that Iraq posed a major threat [to] our security.
… The first option was to look the other way and hope that things fix themselves. The second option was to take preemptive action. Both options have their consequences, but which set of consequences is more favorable than the other?
First let’s take a good look at both options, beginning with taking no action at all. There are three significant advantages in taking no action at all. First is satisfying the international community. Many nations believe that the United States has no business invading Iraq. Through dormancy, we will maintain strong alliances with foreign countries. The second advantage is the preservation of the United State’s image. If a war does break out, the United States can say, “he started it.” The third advantage involves money. By taking no action, we will not have to pay for high military costs.
By taking no action in Iraq, there are also three significant disadvantages. First of all, we are only delaying warfare. Somewhere down the line we will be attacked and will be forced to go to war against a more powerful Iraq. Secondly, enemies across the world will get the message that they can attack the United States and will get away with it. The third disadvantage is that we will leave a tyrant in charge to run his people into the ground.
The second option, taking preemptive action, has several advantages. First of all, we will benefit from a victory in the war on terror. Secondly, we will do justice for the victims and families affected by the events of September 11. Third, we will save many innocent lives by preventing future enemy strikes. Fourth, we will free the Iraqi people from their ruthless dictator, Sadam Hussein.
The major disadvantage in taking preemptive action unfortunately includes the loss of life. It is almost certain that a military operation will result in the loss of valiant soldiers. Also, we must take in account … the possibility for lost civilian life. Another disadvantage is money. An operation such as the one in Iraq can cost billions of dollars in this day in age.
Now taking a look from a historical standpoint, events such as Pearl Harbor could have been avoided if we had engaged in preemption. We sat in our corner of the world and watched Hitler strengthen Nazi Germany, establish the Axis powers, begin European conquest, slaughter Jews and other minorities, and begin the Second World War. The same can be said about September 11. The previous administration had Osama Bin Laden’s head given to them on a platter in 1993. Instead of taking advantage of the situation they opted to take no action and the Saudi Arabian government let Bin Laden run free. Eight years later, Bin Laden’s group, Al Quaeda, launched the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941.
In light of the consequential and historical evidence … the choice is obvious. Approval of the preemptive doctrine is necessary to overcome the challenges that Iraq brings to the international table. Indeed military operations and reconstruction is a challenge, but if planned properly, we can escape with a minimum amount of negative consequences. In doing so, Iraq becomes a successful, free state in which democracy rules.
This is exactly what we chose to do. In March of 2003, the United States launched one of the most impressive military operations in history. Coalition troops rocketed through the country and took the capital city, Baghdad, in a matter of days. As a result, the Iraqi people were freed and [we thought] the world was rid of another terrorism cell.
[But] military occupation of the country did not mean the end of the operation. Pockets of resistance can still be found and [an elected] government is not yet in place. More than a year after the beginning of the operation, we find ourselves still prepping Iraq for independence. … On June 30, 2004, we handed the power over to the new Iraqi government. …
I believe that the United States chose wisely in engaging in preemption. The option chosen yielded the least amount of negative consequences short and long term. I believe that a preemptive doctrine similar to the current doctrine is needed for permanent use. The current doctrine must be revised to the point of near flawlessness. In doing this, we provide for a more secure and prosperous nation for future generations to enjoy.
"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him."
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Questions
Q1: British Prime Minister Tony Blair describes politics of globalization as, “It is that our self-interest and our mutual interest are today inextricably woven together.” In other words, Blair is emphasizing that the interests of Britain are in close contact with the interests of other countries across the globe in today’s modern world. The power of the (international) community can be used to help fulfill individual interests and achieve worldwide cooperation.
Q2: John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton are the three Democratic presidents that Greaves Whitney singles out in his composition. Whitney mentions these past American leaders to show that Democrats are hypocritical in dealing with the situation in Iraq today. While the Democrats are currently opposed to preemptive strikes, history shows that party members were once strongly in favor of preemptive action as a means to prevent mass warfare and to save innocent lives.
Q3: Three qualities that de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans are the vociferous democracy, the decentralization, and the liking for voluntary associations.
Q4: It will be better for the world to see America bring stability, prosperity, and democracy to Iraq. In succeeding in Iraq, America will demonstrate to the world that it’s morals, values, actions, and operations are honest and true. If America would fail in the Iraqi operation, any confidence that the international community had in the United States would soon be lost.
Q5: Fear of America’s incompetence is significant around the world. Many believe that poor decision making by United States officials could destroy cities, countries, and even the world.
Q6: If America hastily withdrew from Iraq under the pressure of attacks, it is certain that the country would be blanketed by humility. No longer would the world view the United States as a superpower. Instead they would view this country as a symbol of poor planning, poor decision-making, and poor ideals.
Q7: The writer of the article believes that combining the demographic vitality of the Democrats and economic vigor of the Republicans will make the United States stronger.
Q8: Senators Feingold, Byrd, and Leahy are three individuals who expressed their concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption.
Q9: Senator Feingold explains, “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.” After Senator Feingold defines preemption and prevention, he concludes that prevention and preemption are two very different terms. In actuality the words are connotations. I believe that the terms are more closely related than the Senator makes them out to be. However, despite our differences in terminology, I agree with the Senator that preemption and prevention both play a major role in national security planning.
Q10: A world in which the most powerful countries engage preemption would be a world free of warfare but not necessarily safe. This depends on the morals and values of the powerful countries of the world. For example, if the powerful countries practice Communism where the safety of a nation is important but not the safety of an individual, then the world would not be safe for it’s citizens. However, if the countries engaged in preemption were ruled for the people and by the people, then indeed the world would be a safer place for everyone.
Q11: Our national values would thrive in the theoretical world if and only if the United States was the country engaged in preemption.
Q12: The theoretical world would be virtually free of terrorism due to the cooperation of the world. The only reason terrorism is so potent today is because the world lacks cooperation.
Q13: Several reasons exist to favor the doctrine of preemption. Saving lives, minimizing destruction, and avoiding mass warfare are only a few of the reason to support the doctrine. The doctrine of preemption would allow the United States to gain control of a situation before it gets out of hand.
Q14: Former President James Madison once said, “The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.” Senator Byrd utilized this statement to emphasize that if the United States were to engage in preemption, then we must engage as a unified country not as individuals.
Q15: The first concern that I share with the Senator regarding preemption is what the doctrine defines as preemption. The second is the time it should take to approve the doctrine. I believe that it is a serious issue and should be discussed thoroughly before it is approved. The third concern I have is the lack of support from the international community. A fourth concern is the effect a preemptive strike would have on the rest of the world. A fifth concern is the open-ended characteristics that the doctrine contains. Finally, a sixth concern is the amount of time in which the doctrine will be effective.