La Costa Canyon High School
Carlsbad, California
Single Entry
By Amanda Beck
Grade 11
Preemptive
action is the 21st century response to a slew of tough lessons
learned throughout the 20th century. After witnessing devastation of
Nazi terror and later horrors in the Balkans, Iraq, Somalia, and Rwanda, it was
concluded that somehow these injustices must be prevented. Action, for the first
time, would be taken against the aggressor – Saddam Hussein – before he
himself devastated again.
People
can now marvel at the idea that, at first threat, humanity will no longer stand
by and watch these tragedies happen. Instead, tyrants will be displaced,
oppressed peoples liberated and injustices witnessed by our predecessors will
not again be witnessed by us.
However,
this action comes, as all things do, at a high price. Dare we go back on our own
ideals? Would we convict a criminal before a crime has even been committed? It
seems preemptive action is just that. Not only is the
expanded preemptive doctrine allowing us to attack
another country, but it is allowing us to attack without provocation, and
secondly, it is allowing a single person (the President) to decide whether or
not this is a course of action we must pursue.
The
20th Century was full of difficult lessons. It seemed, that time
after time we stood, paralyzed, as millions died. So often we found ourselves
apologizing and swearing it would never happen again. The doctrine would justify
intervention and we could stop these atrocities before they began. For the first
time, we are able to stop genocides before they’ve started, topple dictators
before they’ve come to power, and negotiate civil disputes before they turn
into all out war.
The
United States will show the world that we will not stand by as the lives of
neither innocent people nor ourselves are threatened. We can demonstrate that we
regard our safety with the highest importance, and even though the United
Nations was created to prevent these grievances, its failure will no longer be
tolerated. With the President now acting without demanding the approval of the
United Nations, we could act swiftly and protect our own interests, and do what
we define as “just.”
We
can show the world that we have accepted our place as world powers, and that
we’re prepared to be held accountable for the world, and for humankind, and
that we’re prepared to act to protect what we believe is right when no one
else will.
Yet
in passing such a resolution we betray the very values with which our country
was shaped. Justice, liberty, empowerment of the people, democracy, all of these
values would vanish with the resolution’s acceptance.
“Innocent
until proven guilty,” will be replaced with “Threaten us and die.” Have we all become hypocrites? We demand that the entire
world see the superiority of our ways, yet we cannot even honor these values. We
are willing to bomb a country and kill their people when they have not hurt us
themselves? Have we painted all of our neighbors as villains in this 21st
century McCarthyism?
Allowing
our President to strike others without seeking counsel and approval from
Congress is a betrayal to our republic. We fought so gallantly to free ourselves
from tyranny, yet have we so soon forgotten the importance of having a say in
our government’s actions, and our own destinies?
Preemptive
strikes will be the demise of America’s standing as a respectable country. We
have proven ourselves to be hypocrites by saying we intend to bring democracy
and all of its laurels to Iraq by bombing them. Have they posed a certifiable
threat to our country? When we acted offensively, we ourselves became the
tyrants, the aggressors- dictators of the world. Saddam Hussein has no trial, he
was not found guilty of any crime. Would we allow a felon in our own courts be
executed without first proving his guilt?
Just
because the world is not a democracy does not mean we can allow ourselves to
become dictators. We must apply our democratic beliefs to every action we take,
including foreign policy. If we are to truly believe in this constitution, then
we must accept it as the rights of all men, not just American citizens. That
means that in attacking Iraq, and in the acceptance of this doctrine, we have
become treasonous to our own constitution and all it embodies.
While it is shameful that
such tragedies like those experienced by the Kurds have happened, we must
restrain ourselves from trying to be superheroes. Sometimes doing the humane
thing is not always the right thing. We cannot compromise our values for what or
who we believe is threatening to us. We must only act when we have been
provoked, and then, and only then may we act swiftly and effectively. Otherwise,
we will have destroyed every basis our country was founded on.
1)
Name
three United States Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine
of preemption.
Senator
Russ Feingold, Senator Robert C. Byrd, and Senator Edward Kennedy
2)
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: acting offensively
in the instance of knowing an enemy will attack.
·
Prevention: use of force in the
foresight of a future attack.
The
Senator describes the difference as being a matter of knowing someone will
attack you (preemption) or assuming someone will attack you (prevention) as a
justification for using military means to protect yourself. In some cases, I
believe that preemption may be used as a preventive measure. However, in
today’s complex world, I do not believe a general definition can encompass and
be applied to any given situation.
3)
In
your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in
preemption be a safer world? Explain.
Power
corrupts. Money blinds. Often these factors blur the lines of right and wrong.
It would be a shame to see the unique governments and peoples crushed by
superpowers. These superpowers would be unable to cater to every individual.
Civil wars would erupt, juntas and coup d’etats
would tear the world apart. New villains would arise and the world would be no
safer, just in the hands of a few powerful men.
4)
In
your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would
thrive?
Imposing
our beliefs on other countries is hypocritical and completely against everything
we’ve labeled our country as. By forcing democracy on other nations we are
impeding their rights to freedom as humans. We claim that by democratizing these
nations we are allowing them to participate in the joys of American freedoms,
yet in democratizing them we have prevented them from practicing their freedoms
such as freedom of religion, which, in the case of the Middle East, is
intertwined deeply in their governments. We have interfered with their right to
happiness, which was destroyed when we dropped bombs on their homes and killed
their children. Preemption undermines the American republic, by allowing the
President to make decisions sans justification, provocation, and affirmation.
5)
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?
The
United States could go in and topple regimes, oust terrorists, and set up
democracy, but ultimately it only takes a few radicals to reorganize, preach,
and attack again. These terrorists haven’t a thing to lose; they see no need
for negotiation. Their goals are to achieve the objectives they define, and they
plan to do this through violence. Preemption could destroy the hearts of these
terrorist cells, but it could also trigger the masses to join them.
6)
Discuss
three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.
The
United States must protect itself and its interests. Even though the approval of
the United Nations is of the utmost importance, the veto structure would allow
multilateralism to be stopped with a single “no” vote. We cannot depend on
the United Nations to govern our entire foreign policy and to enforce every
single issue, they simply are not strong enough and
lack the resources. We cannot allow the safety of United States’ citizens to
rest in the hands of the U.N. This doctrine allows the President to take
immediate action and bypass long, complicated congressional approvals. He may
act to protect the safety of Americans freely and as he sees fit. And thirdly,
he is restricted by having to justify himself to the United States congress,
demanding that the President be able to prove that all diplomatic negotiations
failed before the military intervened.
7)
Who
said, “The trust and temptation are too great for any one man?" What was
the context?
Senator
Byrd quoted Madison by saying, “The trust and temptation are too great for any
one man.” He was referring to President Bush. Giving one man such a quantity
of power is dangerous, because without the input and necessary approval of many,
he can make brash decisions out of his own self-interest rather than the
interests of the country he presides over.
8)
Senator
Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that
you share with the Senator.
It concerns me, mainly, that
this doctrine allows one man to have so much power. Revolutionaries fought so
many years ago to free themselves of tyrants, yet here we are relinquishing our
very own power that was fought and died for. Our interests may be forgotten if
one man were to make a wrong decision. What about the ramifications of taking
this action? What about our friends abroad? Will they be targeted? Will the
tensions between Jews and Muslims in Israel and Palestine only increase, the
rift between them grow deeper? The cost for this preemptive strike is enormous
and we will bear the brunt of it alone, our taxes will sky rocket and our
economy will dip while the deficit grows yet larger. What about the relationship
we have with our allies, who will surely suffer and has suffered since we went
into Iraq? These people are our friends, and the European Union’s opinion
should have mattered to us, yet their voices fell deaf upon us. And the United
Nations, an organization that we helped charter; yet we have allowed ourselves
to discredit and dishonor them by going above their head? If the United States
won’t comply with the United Nations, why should anyone? Preoccupied with a
war abroad, we cannot allow domestic issues to fall forgotten, issues like
medical insurance and unemployment. We have dishonored ourselves by passing a
bill that undermines the republic we fought for, and by allowing a President to
act without direct instruction from the senate. Future applications of the
resolution will allow Bush and later Presidents to act openly by giving them a
blank check with which to wage war. A resolution this open ended may be
justified in the Iraqi case, but future cases may not warrant such use, yet it
has been made readily available.
9)
Will
it be better for the world if America succeeds in bring stability, prosperity,
and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails?
For
all involved, it will be better if America restores order in Iraq, as long as we
have been humbled and learned from the lessons from our occupation and
liberation of Iraq. If Iraq can become prosperous, and the Iraqis are truly
happy, maybe other Middle Eastern cultures will modernize and evolve to meet the
needs of their people.
10)
Is
it American competence that is feared, or is it incompetence?
I
think it is a combination of both. America is a competent military power, but
often incompetent in its diplomacy. We have an extremely efficient military,
which has enormous destructive capability. This military, when used as a last
resort in some instances, is good, and would not be feared. However, I believe
many in the world fear that America’s incompetence in diplomacy has been made
up for in sheer force, which obviously is a terrifying situation to be in. We do
not realize nor understand the fear that is struck into people by the amount of
power and military efficiency we have at the hands of weak diplomacy.
11)
If
America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would
that be a sign of humility of a devastatingly irresponsible act?
We
have toppled a regime. To withdraw from Iraq without establishing order would be
an act of cowardice. You do not destroy countries and kill people without
leaving them with something better. It would be irresponsible to run in the face
of danger. It is important that when the United States acts aggressively they
resolve aggressively too, and do not lower the standards because they are afraid
of casualties. If we are so afraid of death, we shouldn’t have started a war
in the first place.
12)
What
is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in
the future?
The
writer claims that “demographic vitality” and “productivity-led economic
vigor” will make America stronger. Americans are a diverse group of people,
and in being so they have opened themselves up to many opportunities. Their
drive to succeed will undoubtedly allow them to excel and continue to thrive and
make money, regardless of how much their spirit is broken by terrorists.
[Back]
[Home] [Main
Menu] [Another Way] [Pilot
Projects] [Archives]