Posted on 03/18/2004 11:04:51 PM PST by quidnunc
Among those Americans anxious to declare defeat in the face of victory, a current mantra holds that the idea of preemptive war is dead, killed by the results in Iraq. Absolute nonsense.
Preemptive war, which simply prevents an avowed enemy from killing Americans or other innocents, is alive and kicking as a useful concept. We should all be glad of it: If you know an enemy means you harm, why wait for the knife to fall?
Extremists at both ends of the political spectrum try to destroy ideas they don't like by over-simplifying them until they sound dangerous and absurd. In the case of preemptive war, those on the hard left imply that acceptance of such a policy would unleash our military for an endless round of brutal invasions of harmless states full of happy, peace-loving natives.
In fact, the precedent of Operation Iraqi Freedom — in which America troops did great good for Iraq, the region and the world — laid down a powerful marker. Having broken the imaginary taboo against hitting a virulent enemy before he hits you, we sent a message to dictators and thuggish presidents-for-life that they can no longer count on America standing idly by as they butcher their own people, seek weapons of mass destruction or sponsor terror.
We aren't going to attack everyone, everywhere, all the time. Couldn't do it, even if we wanted to — which we don't. Our use of preventive war will be selective and rare. We may not see another example for decades. But the strongmen realize that, sufficiently provoked, we might do it again next year.
A national security doctrine that includes preemptive war along with a full range of other policy options simply augments our strategic tool-kit.
What are the results, thus far, of our preemptive war against Saddam's regime?
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Instead of more treaties and international peace organizations, such as were formed after the two World Wars, to ensure lasting peace, we have learned and acted on the principle that it's better to kill Evil before it kills you.
It needs to be emphasized that national power is most effective as a deterrent if it is perceived to be credible. Credibility depends on the national willingness and demonstrated use of that power.
Conversely, a repeated reluctance to use force to protect national interests is perceived as weakness and invites challenges to probe its limits. Ignoring threats is the surest way to provoke more 911s and 311s.
Similarly, voting out a government that recognized the potential threats and moved to eradicate terrorism, that is, returning to the post-Vietnam War syndrome, would be tragically regrettable.
As a corollary, it should be noted that true respect for a nation derives also from the employment of power which is judicious and humanitarian in its concern to minimize civilian casualties, as shown one year ago in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
That said, it is hard to escape the conclusion, that after eight years of malaise under the prior administration, Team Bush has made America safer. As Peters point out, future presidents -- and future generations -- will be grateful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.