Preemptive War
About six years ago, in a speech at West Point, President Bush spoke of his doctrine of pre-emption also known as preemptive war. He stated that “The war on terror will not be won on the defensive,” and that “We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act.”(Hodge 418). He did not disappoint considering that only 10 months after giving that speech President Bush sent U.S. troops to dethrone Saddam Hussein. After less then 2 months after the first bombs were dropped Bush announced that the mission had been accomplished”.
Today, the doctrine of preemption has fallen on from grace. The supporters of the doctrine are held significantly less then vindicated. The Iraq war and its aftermath have ultimately failed to accomplish its goals. The problems of our occupation over the last year make it highly unlikely that preemption will be utilized again any time soon, and for good reason.
Preemptive war is defined as an attempt to repel or misperceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. That very same definition explains why preemptive war is contradictory to its goals. Reason being is because by utilizing any form of military action a nation is actually just compounding upon the very same problems in which led to the dis-agreement in the first place. These military actions in many cases lead to the actual war itself. because by the usage of preemptive war a nation is performing an act of aggression in which leaves the other country no choice but to defend itself. When we think of preemptive war the Iraq war often comes to mind. We think of conflicts in which we were on the delivering end of the preemptive war. This often falsely leads us into believing it was justified, because as Americans that is what we are supposed to feel. However, when we take a look into situations in which we were on the receiving end our outlooks on preemptive war changes.
One of the situations in which we were on the receiving end was Pearl Harbor. The average Japanese citizen from that time would have most likely say that they were in fact justified in launching a preemptive attack on Pearl Harbor. We were cutting of their oil supply, and they believe that for them to survive as a nation that would have to launch a preemptive strike on us. The majority of the American people at that time would have agreed that up until Pearl Harbor a war with Japan was “avoidable”. Despite what we felt, the Japanese felt that the war was “unavoidable” so they launched a preemptive strike. So basically, in a conflict in which a nation launches a preemptive strike it doesn’t even matter whether or not the receiving nation felt the war was “unavoidable”. Because when it comes to preemptive war it only takes one nation to “tango”, and that one is the nation whom sends their missiles first. Here in lies the problem with preemptive war.
The attack on Pearl Harbor happened almost seventy years ago, so when speaking about a preemptive war and its effect on our society today it may seem irrelevant to some of us. A situation in which preemptive war was used in which we all felt the fall out from was the 9/11 Attacks. At first thought many people would say that it was not a preemptive strike, and that it was clear cut terrorism. However, that is looking at it from our point-of-view while neglecting that of the attackers. What we call terrorism they call “Jihad” or as the Qur’an describes it: a war in the way of god, directed towards Satan’s inducements, aspects of one’s own self, or against a visible enemy. In this case we are the visible enemy of a group of people who believe that a war with us has been foretold in a religious book that is centuries old. Of course they believe that the war is unavoidable, so to get the upper hand they launched a preemptive strike.
Its easy for people to believe that preemptive war is justified, especially when it has no direct affects upon them. However, when past events that we witnessed are taken in to account, such as 9/11, then opinions suddenly start to change. We begin to realize that despite which “end” of the preemptive war tactics you are on it is unjust and kills any hope for peace being achieved. Especially in cases in which a nation attacks another nation without warning, such as the attack on Pearl Harbor. If we take a simple look at the events which transpired during the Cuban Missile crisis, we began to realize that no war is “unavoidable” and peace can be achieved through diplomatic methods.
Works Cited (MLA):
Hodge, Carl, and Cathal Nolan. U.S. Presidents and Foreign Policy: From 1789 to the Present. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Incorporated, 2006.
