Foriegn Policy Meanderings......
B/c of the recent attacks in Chechnya and elsewhere, russian pres. putin has invoked the "made in the USA" idea of pre-emptive strikes against possible terrorist outfits (i.e. ''As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases . . . we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world").
Now, I'm not one to take hard stances on things, but this foriegn policy doctrine that started with the U.S. invasion of Iraq seems to be nothing but bad news. Assume, for argument's sake, that the U.S. Government recieved intelligence adequate to justify preemptive invasion on a certain country; assume too that they only invoke this doctrine when it's absolutly essential. Even with these generous, though not implausible, assumptions the doctrine just fails. Here's why:
1.) We can't impose a double standard on other countries who might not have justifiable motives. Say, for example, China invades and annexes Mongolia because they have received "intelligence" that Mongolia is a threat. What international agency (like the U.S. would subscribe to that anyway) is going to determine what qualifies as a justifable threat? But, it's circular (not to mention dangerous) to say a threat is what any government determines its threats to be.
2.) Assessing threats that need to be preempted belongs to the intelligence community; and until we can be assured that only "good" intellegence will be taken into account for such decisions, there's no way to tell whether preemptives strikes are really necessary.
The problem is that, in some cases, I can see why a preemptive attack could be necessary and even good, but can anyone come up with a way to justify this doctrine without letting in those pesky, and very dangerous, side-effects?
posted by Chris @ 9/09/2004 01:18:00 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
Well, for me (and I know I'll get myself in trouble for this), the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were not "preemptive", but rather, "vindictive".
MRKH
JD/Jason,
I guess I know too many jewish mystics (for some reason, I can't seem to use the word Jew to describe members of that faith without feeling like its a slur of some sort? I wonder why.) to catch on here. Are you hinting at a certain Yale professor's theory of misinterpretation, or is this one of the billion things the roman scientist said that went over my head?
Speaking of Ottaviano, if I transcribed all his stuff to an word file, do you guys think it would be valuable to translate into english, and would you help?
Wow, talk about meandering.....So, JD, explain how these academic aspersions don't apply to your prooftext. Scripture aside, do any of you think that the doctrine can be justified?
Pre-emptive intervention within one's own borders, though it still creates certain problems, is less of an issue here than intervention in other soverigen states affairs. Israel action against Palestinian terrorists may or may not be justified, but they are essentially dealing with threats inside their own borders. What I'm worried about here is what president putin said ("As for carrying out preventive strikes against terrorist bases . . . we will take all measures to liquidate terrorist bases in any region of the world"). That could mean that if Cechen rebels moved to kansas and began plotting attacks from the Topeka Suburbs, Putin would take action there. That's a bit troublesome.
Yet, I hesitate to throw away the idea. If another 9/11 were to occur, and we just waited for it to happen before retaliating, then all us doves would be outraged that the government let it happen. In the end, I think that this whole discussion turns on the use of intelligence. How do we determine its authenticity? Who determines it? I doubt Bush willingly manipulated or invented evidence. Where his fault lies, in my opinion, is not making absolutely sure that the info he got was good intelligence.
CORRECTION (Chris Potter) "i.e. one of those anomalous people who loves the Gospels and THEREFORE finds himself siding with the Democrats on many issues."
Just a nit pick (and I'm critical about Bush on WMDs as well). But epistemology doesn't suggest what someone above suggested. In a traditional epistemology (justified true belief) one may have strong justification, be justified in saying one knows, but not have the proposition be true. This happens all the time. Put an other way, epistemologically knowledge and sureity aren't the same thing.
Chris,
I agree with you that this policy of preemptive strikes is uncomfortable. But I think that the place to start if you want to change this is by talking to the 9/11 families and convincing them that blaming the gov't for what happened is the wrong approach. 9/11 was a surprise attack--and that is the whole point of a surprise attack, the gov't doesn't know about it. Suing the gov't to get money because the gov't supposedly contributed to it or was negligent only leads the gov't to adopt a policy such as preemptive strikes, b/c it has to do everything in its power to prevent or preempt any future attack (and America has a lot of power).
I actually do think that since Bush has brought the war to them over there that it has prevented another major attack here, for the time being. Still, it has come with a huge price tag, in many ways: lives, tax dollars, and America's standing in the world community. It might have been better not to invade Iraq (although Afghanistan was a must) and just let the cards fall as they may while trying to improve security measures at home. But that is not what happened, so now we have to see the present course through to a successful end.
By the way, Chris, this policy of preemptive strikes is not Made in the USA, as you suggested--it is made in Israel, which has successfully implemented this foreign policy against its Arab enemies in the past and retains the possibility of doing so again if it perceives the need.
I completely agree with John. I was actually watching a 9/11 documentary last night that refered to all the "mistakes" the government made at the time, specifically pointing out the number of times the government was warned that Al-Quida was determined to attack on American soil. Well, good grief, how many such warnings about various groups does the government get in a day? Numbers, I'm sure. And then, when they do release the information to the public (something the families accuse them of being negligent about in the case of 9/11) they are criticized for that, as just occurred with the threats against the Citicorp building etc. Yes, let's learn from our mistakes. But the milk is spilt and it was an accident. Let's move on.
"I actually do think that since Bush has brought the war to them over there that it has prevented another major attack here, for the time being."
John,
I agree we can't get out now, but I'm curious why you think going into Iraq has prevented another attack here. We know now that there were no weapons in the first place. All he could do was harbor terrorists, something that is going on anyway given the easy opportunities they now have to kill american soldiers.