 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
 |
|
|
|
To perform a search, click on ==> Search
 The Origin of the Preemptive
Strike Doctrine
by Nic Samojluk
The Origin of the Preemptive Strike Doctrine
The origin of the idea of a preemptive strike against Iraq was rooted in the reaction of George Bush against the unexpected terrorist attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon three years ago, which engulfed in a ball of fire and smoke the Twin Towers that had graced the New York skyline for many decades; leveled the proud symbol of western civilization and the free world to the ground; cut short the lives of three thousand innocent civilians, policemen and firemen; and left thousands of widows and orphans who even today are having a hard time comprehending the enormity of their irreplaceable loss. Shortly after this incredible terrorist strike, carried out with diabolic precision and astounding success on U.S. soil and with our own weapons, in his State of the Union message, George Bush issued a declaration identifying several countries as the axis of evil: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Are Preemptive Strikes Morally Justifiable?
In spite of all the arguments justifying the new doctrine, the big question is not whether we have the legal authority, the military power, the determination, or the support of our allies, but rather whether a preemptive strike is morally justifiable; because, in the final analysis, after all the dust is settled, we will be eventually judged by history. If striking the enemy is morally acceptable, then perhaps we made a big mistake in not attacking the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, when the nuclear threat seemed very real, and the Atomic Clock was set at three minutes before midnight.
Likewise, perhaps the Soviet Union made a huge mistake in not making a first strike move against its declared enemy, the United States, who had once used nuclear power at Horishima against its enemy. Of course, the fear of Mutual Assured Destruction was also real; therefore, maybe the solution to the Iraqi dilemma would have been to help Saddam develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in which case the fear of a Mutual Assured Destruction might have helped to keep the peace.
A few decades ago the Soviet Union was our number one enemy. Now Russia is among our friends; of course, some would argue that the deathblow against the Soviet Union was the natural outcome of our astounding victory in the Gulf War. Nevertheless, some experts insist that Ronald Reagan managed to force the Soviet Union to implode under its own weight without firing a singhle shot.
There is such a thing as a "Just War Theory," which is supported even by the Vatican, and the Gulf War might be an appropriate illustration of this, which might explain why the U.S. managed to secure a wide coalition of nations supporting it; but many remain unconvinced about its ethical implications and the large number of collateral damage in terms of loss of human life that is generally associated with each war.
This time the U.S. had to do it on a much smaller scale, and we are still awaiting for the full impact of this bold initiative by George Bush. Will the president be exonerated for the deaths of over one thousand American soldiers and the killing of thousands of Iraqis? Will the strong medicine be worse than the disease? We need to wait for the final verdict of history, and some os us may not be here to learn what the final result will be! Two years ago I asked the same question, and I do not detect any light at the end of the tunnel yet. The day I see it, I hope it is not the light of a locomotive moving at full speed against us.
To access my "A Preemptive StrikeAgainst Iraq?" original article written two years ago, scroll down and read the article posted below:
Note: These documents were copied from the original website, and sometimes the software refused to edit them the way I wanted. For example, I tried to delete the underlining in the tile of this article without succes, regardless of the times I attempted to do so! Another example is my failure to reduce the size of the font in the article that follows.
History Will Have the Final Say
Regarding Bush's Preemptive StrikeDoctrine
by Nic Samojluk
Everytime the Iraqi insurgents succeed in killing a lot of innocent Iraqi civilians, or a large number of American soldiers, we have a chance to ponder again the merits of the preemptive strike doctrine implemented by George Bush against Iraq. Yesterday a powerful explosion near the American base in Mosul killed 22, among whom there were 14 American soldiers' deaths. The attack coincided with the surprise visit of Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain to Baghdad.
The highest American toll took place on March 23, 2003, when 29 American soldiers lost their lives. Whether Bush's preemptive strike war against Iraq was a good idea or not, now there is no way out except hope for an eventual peace when most of the insurgents are either eliminated or else are out of ammunition. History will have to determine the wisdom of the preemptive strike doctrine.
Read more: Explosion at Big American Base in Mosul Kills 22
Did Voters Elect Bush Because
of his View on Irak?
by Nic Samojluk
George Bush thinks that, because the majority of Americans reelected him for office, that this means most Americans agree with him on his preemptive strike doctrine, which has been the philosophical basis for his war against Iraq. He doesn't know that many voted for him mainly because of his stand against abortion and homosexuality and not the Iraqi war, and I am one of them.
| Quote: |
(CBS/AP) President Bush says his re-election proves Americans agree with his decision to invade Iraq, and that as a result, there's no need to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes made in planning for the war, or its aftermath.
|
Read more: Bush: Voters Ratified Iraq Policy
Bullies always attack a smaller target
by Elaine
"Not too difficult to "strike" a much easier country. Now let's apply that to a country with KNOWN nuclear weapons: North Korea. Quite a different policy. Bullies alway attack a smaller target.
Not to mention that Iraq had neither threatened us nor had nuclear weapons. Was he trying to finish his Dad's job? Or was his Dad quite a bit smarter, having been in actual war himself? Something son W. had never experienced. Most of the generals were against war, but the Neo-cons, none of whom had actually been in uniform, were gung-ho for war.
It's easy to talk war when you have no children involved."
Can we Place Ourselves in Bush's Shoes?
by Nic Samojluk
I do not approve of Bush's new doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike, but I understand his reaction to the 9/11 event. Would I have done what he did when he decided to invade Iraq? I might! I am human, too.
Saddam Hussein was sponsoring the terrorist activities of the Palestinians, and rewarding the families of suicide bombers with anywhere between $10,000 and $25,000 dollars. All experts and politicians believed that Saddam either did possess weapons of mass destruction, or else was determined to acquire them; in which case the security of the state of Israel would be in jeopardy, for which we were morally obligated to defend at all costs.
Given this scenario, I can understand why George Bush opted for an invasion. He had exhausted his appeals to the U.N., the paper tiger that issued 17 rulings against Iraq, but had no real power to do anything beyond issuing additional harmless resolutions.
Does all this justify invading a foreign country? Probably not. Otherwise, the Soviet Union made a big mistake in not invading the U.S. during the Cold War.
The Pre-emptive Strike doctrine is a dangerous weapon that might eventually fall in the hands of our enemies with terrible consequences far exceeding the harm done to us on 9/11. This is my humble opinion. History will determine whether I am wrong. Unfortunately, I may not be around to read its verdict!
A Preemptive Strike Against Iraq?
by Nic Samojluk
In Defense of a Preemptive Strike
The origin of the idea of a preemptive strike against Iraq is rooted in the reaction of George Bush against the unexpected terrorist attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon a year ago, which engulfed in a ball of fire and smoke the Twin Towers that had graced the New York skyline for many decades; leveled the proud symbol of western civilization and the free world to the ground; cut short the lives of three thousand innocent civilians, policemen and firemen; and left thousands of widows and orphans who even today are having a hard time comprehending the enormity of their irreplaceable loss. Shortly after this incredible terrorist strike, carried out with diabolic precision and astounding success on U.S. soil and with our own weapons, in his State of the Union message, George Bush issued a declaration identifying several countries as the axis of evil : Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Since then, his rhetoric has been increasing in frequency and focusing mainly on Saddam Hussein, who has supported terrorist activities in the past, who allegedly attempted to assassinate the father of the current U.S. president back in 1993, who is making bonus payments to families of suicide bombers in Israel, who has used poison gas against his own people, who has breached 23 of the 27 separate obligations mandated by nine separate resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, who has barred UN weapons inspectors since 1998, and who has plotted to develop anthrax, nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. The U.S. government has attempted to establish a connection between the 9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil and the Saddam Hussein regime, which would provide a solid justification for a military response against Baghdad, but so far no direct link has been found. Dennis Prager, who supports a military strike designed to remove Saddam from power and restore democracy to the Iraqi population, argues that the development and eradication of evil regimes follow a predetermined pattern described as follows: First the evil takes hold and it has many defenders, then said evil is destroyed at a cost of an innumerable number of human lives, many of them innocent of any crimes against humanity. After the evil is vanquished, there follows an almost unanimous agreement that what was defeated was certainly evil in nature. He offers the following examples to bolster his theory: The eradication of slavery one and a half century ago; the defeat of Communism, following Ronald Reagan’s description of the Soviet Union as the evil empire; and the defeat of Nazism. He suggests that it is our duty to do what needs to be done to defeat Islamic extremism.
The Case For Peace and Appeasement Among those who are opposed to a preemptive strike against the Iraqi regime we have Saddam Hussein himself, who argues that he is open to negotiations. Three rounds of recent talks between the United Nations and Iraq have failed, but Saddam attributes this failure to the United Nations unwillingness to lift the 12-year-old sanctions and the US and British-enforced no-fly zones in southern and northern Iraq imposed since the 1991 Gulf War. Then we have China, which is a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council with veto powers, warning that an attack against Baghdad would turn the whole Middle East into a politically unstable region; seconded by Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, who says that a strike against Iraq will create an unmanageable situation for Arab leaders; followed by France and Germany, who have announced that they will not support American efforts to topple Saddam Hussein without a clear mandate from the United Nations. Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, are opposed to Bush’s military intervention in Iraq as well; and Australian Defense Minister, Robert Hill, stated that his government would like to see some hard evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or links to terror groups before agreeing to join a U.S. attack on the country. Even our closest ally in every important military mission, Great Britain, sides with the opinion that Saddam should be given a deadline to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors prior to any attack.
Must America Go It Alone?
Given the almost worldwide opposition to a preemptive strike against Iraq due to the lack of a clear connection between the terrorist savage carnage of 9/11 on U.S. soil and the Iraqi regime, and solid evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the question is: Should America go it alone in this questionable mission? The Bush administration seems convinced that the answer is yes. US Vice-President Dick Cheney believes that doing nothing is riskier than acting against the Iraqi leader; US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, adds that it is less important to have unanimity than it is to making the right decisions and doing the right thing, and he cites the case of Winston Churchill, whose lonely voice was not heard until each country (in Europe) got attacked by Hitler; and George Bush agrees with both, of course, arguing that it is his duty to defend U.S. citizens against foreign threat. Bush’s legal advisers tell him that he has all the authority he needs to act against the Iraqi regime, since Saddam has violated all the U.N resolutions which have been issued since the end of the Gulf War.
Are Preemptive Strikes Morally Justifiable?
In spite of all the arguments alluded to above, the big question is not whether we have the legal authority, the military power, the determination, or the support of our allies, but rather whether a preemptive strike is morally justifiable; because, in the final analysis, after all the dust is settled, we will be eventually judged by history. If striking the enemy is morally acceptable, then perhaps we made a big mistake in not attacking the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, when the nuclear threat seemed very real, and the Atomic Clock was set at three minutes before midnight. Likewise, the Soviet Union made a huge mistake in not making a first strike move against its declared enemy, the United States, who had once used nuclear power against its enemy. Of course, the fear of Mutual Assured Destruction was also real; therefore, perhaps the solution to the Iraqi dilemma is to help Saddam develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in which case the fear of a Mutual Assured Destruction might help keep the peace. A few decades ago the Soviet Union was our number one enemy. Now Russia is among our friends; of course, some would argue that the deathblow against the Soviet Union was the natural outcome of our astounding victory in the Gulf War.What do ethicists say about this? I will limit myself to an article written by David R. Larson, the president of the Association of Adventist Forums, dated August 26, 2002, in which he stated: Should the United Stated Attack Iraq? My answer to this question is “never.” I reminded him that we should never say “never.” To which he responded with: I revise what I earlier said to “We should never say, ‘Never say ‘never.’” Does this mean that a preemptive strike is never morally justifiable? I would like to respond with an illustration: If an innocent hostage victim is threatened with a deadly weapon by a kidnapper, is it wrong for sharp shooters to kill the criminal with a preemptive strike? My answer is No. The threat is real, and the objective of the preemptive strike is saving a human life from a real and verifiable threat. This is where Bush’s logic is in question, unless he has undeniable proof that Saddam Hussein does possess weapons of mass destruction, and provided there is undeniable evidence of an Iraqi threat to use them against the U.S. or its allies. Lacking such evidence, the strike against Saddam would be equivalent to a policeman killing a suspected criminal on the mere supposition that he might be in possession of a dangerous weapon, and barring the existence of an expressed threat to the life of a potential victim.
August 31, 2002
 Free Mailing List Club!
If you would like to be on our SDA Forum Mailing List, please take a minute to sign up today and join hundreds of others who have done already so. It is free, and you will have the choice of unsuscribing at will. We do not share, nor do we sell your E-mail to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
