Monday, February 09, 2004
Max Boot on the doctrine of preemption in the 02/16/2004 Weekly Standard: "In the first place, preemptive war--or even preventive (some say preventative) war where no threat is imminent--was hardly invented by the Bush administration. It has long been an accepted option not only for the United States, but for other nations as well. In his new book, The Breaking of Nations, Robert Cooper, a career British diplomat who is now a senior European Union official, writes that "the War of the Spanish Succession, fought to ensure that the crowns of France and Spain were not united . . . was a preventative war. No one attacked Britain; but if Britain had allowed the two countries to unite it would by then have been unable to deal with an attack from the resulting superpower." . . .
Japan preempted what they believed a major US threat in the Pacific immidiately comes to my mind.
Boot claims, "Recent U.S. history is replete with smaller-scale instances of preventive action, from the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to the invasion of Grenada in 1983. In neither case had there been a direct attack on the United States; the threats being addressed (the rise of communism in the Dominican Republic, the cultivation of Grenada as a Soviet and Cuban base) were largely speculative, and many critics charged that they were being blown out of proportion. But Presidents Johnson and Reagan, respectively, thought the dangers grave enough to risk American lives."
The major difference I see in these instances are the US has preempted small nations unable to defend themselves while Japan, a smaller nation, preempted a superpower in its region. Also to note, these were "speculative" threats. Iraq, Grenada, Domincan Republic. Speculative. And I think the critics are being borne out in history -- they were right.
Of course, as an individual we are bound by laws, as a nation we are strong enough to pick and choose which ones we abide -- whose going to hold us accountable? I still can't imagine this "military action" has been nor will be good for our nation. We are the bully. The superpower. Let's just hope we don't have to take out half the world to prove it.
|
Japan preempted what they believed a major US threat in the Pacific immidiately comes to my mind.
Boot claims, "Recent U.S. history is replete with smaller-scale instances of preventive action, from the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 to the invasion of Grenada in 1983. In neither case had there been a direct attack on the United States; the threats being addressed (the rise of communism in the Dominican Republic, the cultivation of Grenada as a Soviet and Cuban base) were largely speculative, and many critics charged that they were being blown out of proportion. But Presidents Johnson and Reagan, respectively, thought the dangers grave enough to risk American lives."
The major difference I see in these instances are the US has preempted small nations unable to defend themselves while Japan, a smaller nation, preempted a superpower in its region. Also to note, these were "speculative" threats. Iraq, Grenada, Domincan Republic. Speculative. And I think the critics are being borne out in history -- they were right.
Of course, as an individual we are bound by laws, as a nation we are strong enough to pick and choose which ones we abide -- whose going to hold us accountable? I still can't imagine this "military action" has been nor will be good for our nation. We are the bully. The superpower. Let's just hope we don't have to take out half the world to prove it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
