In that case there was a direct deterrent to the enemy (nuclear retaliation targeted on USSR.)
This new preemptive strategery requires us to risk attacking sovereign nations (dictatorships or whatever,) before they get too strong or dangerous. This is similar to the thinking behind the Pearl Harbor attack. The Japanese had to attack early before the US had built up its Pacific Fleet.
Since the stateless terrorists don't respond to the classical deterrents, we need a more personal deterrent for each identified terrorist, don't we? We almost need a butler-bomb that follows these folks or their family or whatever's important to them everywhere they go, that can immediately be activated in the event they attack.
Right now, the stateless terrorists have defeated MADD because they can attack without fear of retaliation. Until that is changed, I fear we will be dragged down this dangerous preemptive strike tunnel which cannot lead us to new heights.
Rather, the only deterent in the future is to have a well armed citizenry and reduce command and control centers (like WTC and the Pentagon) that provide targets for terrorists.
That's laughable. Are you saying the Japanese had to attack because we were going to attack first???. In the current case, we have a nation (Iraq) helmed by a man who has stated unequivocally that he wishes to see the extermination of Israel and (pie in the sky, yes) America. He has attempted to assassinate a former US president.
The question is not whether Saddam is dangerous, or whether he would attack US interests given the chance. The question is when will he do this. George Will makes good points here that we are flying without precedent, but that does not mean we do not have justification.
The terrorist were Egyptians and Saudi Arabians. The know how, ideology, recruit, funding came mainly from these two countries, and may be from Iran also.
At this point, it is simply too convenient to beet on a dead dog! Iraq, has been a sitting duck for us to bomb every time we feel like showing some testosterone. The real menace is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. As you know, Saudi Arabia has Bob Strauss, and many other heavily connected lobbyist protecting them. Egypt, well they are our friends and they have peace with Israel, so let them alone. Iran, it is too big and too militant, and may give us a bloody nose, so leave it alone.
The US should not shy away from confronting the Islamic Jihadists regardless where they are, even in Jersey City!
That is true only insofar as they are truely stateless. IMO, some governments are actively supporting terrorist acts, and, if that is so, then they are not terrorist acts at all, but acts of war by a foreign power.
We should, IMO, be holding more foreign governments responsible for what goes on in their own countries. I realize that wont work with Afganistan, but I think it will work in places like Saudi Arabia.
What we really need is better intelligence as to how these 'terrorist' organizations are getting funded. Any government found to knowingly support a 'terrorist' organization should be dealt with, either diplomatically or militarily, in such a way as to insure that such funding stops and is not restarted.
Without good intelligence, we're like the Cyclops in The Odyssey, blindly throwing rocks at No One, powerful but helpless.
Tuor