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

Prevention or Preemption?
By Stephen Barbera

The Preemption Doctrine is an essential part of the fight against terrorism and the safety of our nation as a whole.  With the ever-increasing production of weapons of mass destruction and the increasing probability of a terrorist organization acquiring them, the United States must do everything within its power to prevent a strike against our homeland.  Preemption is the most effective and efficient means by which we can accomplish this defense. 

Preemption as defined by Senator Feingold in the Congressional Record is “knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself.”  This means that a first action is taken against a known enemy due to the knowledge of that enemy planning a direct attack to take place in the near future.  In today’s world of nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs, countries … must [distinguish] not only friend from enemy but also the capability of the enemy’s weapons.  This is due to the fact that a nuclear attack on an enemy can be carried out without any warning and could decimate all life in [any] region.  Furthermore, if there are very few ways to stop one nuclear warhead from hitting U.S. soil, then there is no way that a nuclear attack could be stopped once begun.  That is why [attacks] must be prevented before they erupt into a full scale, horrifying, nuclear war.  Sadly enough diplomacy is only the answer in a few cases.  The majority [of cases involve] rogue terrorists who believe in only one thing; blowing up the United States.  So, if a nuclear attack can not be averted through diplomacy and cannot be stopped once begun, that leaves a preemptive strike as the only alternative.  This [is a valid] alternative because after diplomacy fails, the United States must act to ensure the safety of the homeland.   

There have been many times throughout U.S. history when a preemptive action was taken as a defense to a possible enemy attack.  An early example took place in 1962 when John F. Kennedy was President.  J.F.K.’s presidency was a time of great terror and strain due to the iron curtain that had engulfed much of Europe.  When the Soviets moved into Cuba and installed nuclear warheads pointing toward the United State’s shores, a preemptive action was taken in the form of a blockade.  Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba to show that America would not tolerate this type of threat and also to hopefully force [the Soviets] to peacefully retreat ….  His blockade did in fact work, and after many months the Soviets finally pulled out of Cuba and returned to Europe without a missile being fired by either side.  This is a classic example of a preemptive action that ended an otherwise hopeless situation. 

Many more successful preemptive strikes were completed during the 1980s during Ronald Reagan’s terms in office.  The first of these took place in 1983 and dealt with the invasion of Grenada, a country that was causing continual problems for the U.S.  President Reagan also ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya in 1986 in a futile attempt to end terrorism by starting at the root.  In these two cases, the offending country showed clear plans to attack the United States, thus rendering them textbook preemptive cases.  To prevent these planned attacks, the U.S. immediately attacked these two nations, swiftly eliminating any threat that they could pose to the U.S.

When looking back through history, there is one specific tragic event that I believe could have been easily avoided through a preemptive strike.  This horrible event was Pearl Harbor and the enemy was the Japanese.  The United States previously knew of the Japanese alliance with the axis powers and also knew of their air capabilities.  There is even now talk of intelligence knowing of a possible attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese well before the event.  If the United States had evaluated the evidence, they would have found that this warranted a preemptive strike on Japan that could have taken shape in a number of ways.  This would have surely changed the course of history and saved thousands of lives in the process.   

Opposition to the Preemption doctrine [is] rooted in ethical considerations [as well as concerns about the growth] of government power.  Among many other ethical considerations, the question, Is it ever ok to kill?, seems to always rise to the forefront.  This ancient question should be reworded “Is it ok to take the lives of few to save millions?” because this is what our world has come to today.  With the possession of weapons of mass destruction, rogue countries could kill millions in an instant, whereas a preemptive strike might take the lives of 1000 terrorists or affiliated killers.  The answer to this question is clear; in the society that we live in today, ridding the world of a few terrorists is the price to pay for saving the lives of millions of innocent civilians whose lives could be snuffed out in an instant by a nuclear attack.  

Another face of the opposition of Preemption is that this doctrine provides the President with too much power.  Who is to decide what is too much power and what is not? I believe the Constitution established that it was the job of the Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives to check the powers of the executive branch of government.  Furthermore, the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military and thus should be able to direct the Armed forces when intelligence warrants. 

Overall, I believe that when executed correctly, preemption is the most effective means of defense that our country currently has in its arsenal.  If the United States must act alone in these matters, then so be it, we will continue to lead the world into the future with the rest of the world following in our path.

Questions

Q1-What does the Prime Minister mean by "politics of globalization"?  He wants to use the "power of community" to do what? 
Prime Minister of England Tony Blair defines the politics of globalization as the interweaving of numerous countries throughout the world both by economics and common interests.  He is simply saying that all of the countries of the world rely on each other for some reason or another and they all work for common goals most of the time.  Blair wants to use the "power of community" to continue globalization in a way that it will benefit the whole population instead of just a few groups.

Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned. 
The three democratic presidents mentioned are John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton. These three Democratic presidents are mentioned because of their defense of preemption throughout the years.  They have set a precedent that is hard to oppose but one needs to look at the situation at hand and review prevention techniques that could be the answer to this problem.

Q 3- Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans. 
Alexis de Tocqueville praised Americans for their religious beliefs, open democracy, and decentralization techniques. 

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 if America succeeds in it’s objectives because then the Iraqi people will not be persecuted by an inhumane ruler and they may be able to aid the world in its current oil needs.

Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? 
I believe American competence is feared by nations that are not willing to take responsibility for world events.  If America competently takes action, these weak countries will look bad for not partaking in the action; thus they do not want to allow America to begin this trend.

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? 
It would not only be a devastatingly irresponsible act, it would also discredit the power of the United States in future endeavors.  This act would be irresponsible because if we began this process, we must persevere, stick to our belief in democracy, and follow through until the completion of this act.  By pulling out of the country due to increased attacks, America would exhibit a weakness that would inspire the increase of fighting in Bosnia and other countries the United States are involved with. 

Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future? 
The writer believes that our country’s ability to stand on its own two feet and act alone for what it believes is right will make it a stronger country in the future.  The fact that it is not tied down to other countries will allow it to grow and prosper on its own, without dragging along other countries. 

 Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption. 
Senator Sarbannes, Senator Feingold, Senator Byrd

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 defines preemption as a first strike against an enemy that plans to attack instead of defending oneself from the attack.  He defines prevention as the use of immediate force against an enemy that has a possibility to attack or a “desire to attack”.  Feingold says the difference between the two is whether the amount of intelligence that is collected is enough to warrant preemption or prevention.  I agree with the Senator that there is a very fine line between the two and that the only distinguishing fact is that one type has enough intelligence to act and the other may not necessarily have enough

Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain. 
Yes, The world would definitely be a safer place because problems would be confronted before sneak attacks were initiated and some of these problems may be solved with minimal bloodshed due to an advance attack.

Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive? 
Yes because each country, including ours, would feel a connection to their country because it executed plans to prevent attacks on the people residing peacefully in the country or serving on military duties elsewhere. 

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?
I believe terrorism would wither because the intelligence net would become so intricate that every event throughout the world would be known about before it took place and safety measures would be taken to eliminate these threats.

Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption. 
First, this doctrine would allow President Bush to engage the United States military in action against an enemy that plans to attack our country.  This speeds up the process of confirmation of intelligence evidence which is crucial to conducting a first strike. 
Second, this doctrine will help eliminate threats in the future by heightening intelligence nets around the world. 
Third, this act will deter countries from planning attacks when they know that if the U.S. finds out at any time, they will attack without warning and devastate the opposition

Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context ? 
James Madison said this piece of wisdom when the United States Constitution was being formed and a President was being selected. 

Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator. 
First, I am concerned that this new doctrine will give the President too much power, allowing him to use the military at a whim. 

Second, I am concerned that the price of a war that is begun by preemption will cost too much due to the fact that only one country would likely be involved in the conflict. 

Third, I think that preemption needs to be handled very delicately because of the intricate intelligence issues that are involved and I don’t know if it will receive this consideration. 

Fourth, I am concerned that if the U.S. strikes under the guise of preemption, it will set a precedent that may cause countries like North Korea to attack the U.S. under the same guise. 

Fifth, I am concerned that by using preemption, the U.S. will alienate itself too much from the rest of the superpowers of the world and make too many enemies that are not needed at a time like this. 

Last, I am concerned that this doctrine is being pushed through Congress by the Bush administration because Congressional elections are coming up and could cause problems for some of the opposition of the doctrine. 

Back