copyright Alan Pogue 1998Preemptive Strike Policy Goes Too Far
In recent weeks and months, the Bush administration has dangerously reshaped US foreign policy. Acting with little congressional resistance and even less public awareness, the White House has sought new military policies that brazenly cross the line between legitimate defense and arrogant offense. In a speech at West Point, President Bush outlined a new plan for preemptive action against alleged enemies. And according to the Washington Post, he's authorized the CIA to employ covert action "in as many as 80 countries."
It's a policy founded on maybe's, might's, and could's, and Iraq seems to be the first target on everybody's mind. Maybe Iraq has a nuclear weapon. It might have been complicit in the September 11th attacks. We could win a war there. But while the suspicions remain somewhat cloudy, the implications of such an attack are very concrete: billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of troops, displeasure from our Allies, and hostility from the Arab world.
All you have to do is imagine other countries adopting the policy for themselves. China, for example, notices that in recent weeks the United States has withdrawn from the ABM treaty, broken ground on a missile defense site in Alaska, floated the idea of nuclear "bunker busters," and proposed a first strike policy against non-nuclear countries - not to mention that the US is the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon in war - all of which suggest that we pose a fairly large and credible threat to the security of China. Should the Chinese government choose to adopt the new Bush doctrine, it could justify striking the United States in order to preempt this threat to its security.
Looking at it from this different perspective, the policy doesn't sound nearly as attractive. It would jeopardize everything from national sovereignty to global stability. It would also transform - or perhaps mutate - the American role within the community of nations. "Rather than continuing to serve as first among equals in the postwar international system, the United States would act as a law unto itself, creating new rules of international engagement without agreement by other nations," writes University of Maryland professor William A. Galston. Is that the kind of image we wish to portray, especially to a world that's become increasingly anti-American?
The sense of cooperation born out of World War II has taken a back seat to self-interested power politics. As a result, multilateral commitments like human rights and peace treaties are being replaced by unilateral national interests … and not only in the United States. Countries like Russia, Israel, Colombia, and India - jumping on the bandwagon - are behaving more unilaterally, and very often at the expense of civilian populations. The President even condones some of these actions. (When was the last time he strongly criticized Vladimir Putin for the war in Chechnya?) The lesson is that radical shifts in US policy do not happen in a vacuum. They anger some countries, endanger others, and perhaps most dangerously, are adopted by the rest.
The United States clearly needs a long-term perspective, but it's one the President has been unwilling to embrace. While the President sought to oust the Al Qaeda network and its Taliban sponsors, he has blocked the expansion of a UN peacekeeping force outside of Kabul after victory. This would peacekeeping force would be a strong, multilateral step toward long-term security in Afghanistan.
But we cannot allow ourselves to leave open wounds around the world. The US must foster practical, time-tested solutions for building stability and security, and that means a genuine commitment of resources and money for not just making war, but keeping peace. Before thinking about a major escalation in Iraq, perhaps we should work to heal the existing wounds.
Write to Your Local Paper
Find out about your local media.You can use our sample letter to the editor below to help raise awareness in your community about the President's new foreign policy and the need for long term solutions that foster global security.
Sample letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
The President has outlined a new plan for preemptive action against enemy regimes -a policy which would threaten national sovereignty and global stability. Under this policy, the President could launch a preemptive attack against any country he believes to be developing weapons of mass destruction, or any country that may potentially attack the US.
Imagine other countries adopting the policy for themselves: China, for example, notices that in recent weeks the United States has withdrawn from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, broken ground on a missile defense site in Alaska, and floated the idea of nuclear "bunker busters" weapons. It would seem that the United States poses a fairly large and credible threat to the security of China. According to the new Bush doctrine, the Chinese government can preemptively strike the US in order to lessen the threat.
This kind of unilateralism reflects the US government's misconception that we can deter political resistance with mere military might, and solve the world's problems with short term, armed interventions. As a result, multilateral commitments like human rights are being replaced by singular concerns for national security and power. This sets a terrible precedent for the rest of the world. China could use this philosophy to attack Taiwan or Japan, India to attack Pakistan.
Radical shifts in US policy are not easily contained. They anger some countries, endanger others, and perhaps most dangerously, are adopted by the rest.
Sincerely,
Reader
