If Barack Obama is the next president, many among us will be assuming that the doctrine of preemptive war (that American can start a war with a terrorist state without being first attacked) is dead. But politicians have a way of adopting any policy - even that of their rivals - if it means getting done what they want done.
I am interested in what Mod-Bloggers think about preemption and whether it remains a viable political philosophy for the future? Has the Iraq War disproven it? Has it proven its effectiveness? Or was it all smoke and mirrors, anyway?
My own opinion was that it was always a bad idea, based on principles that we used to consider un-American. It was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 which cooler heads would have rejected in time, if it had not been used immediately to justify the invasion of Iraq. I think the next president would do well to abandon it. But I suspect they will only do so, if Congress works to regain their Constitutional power over declaring and funding wars.
preemptive war SHOULD be dead but surgical strikes should still be on the table. If Iran is shipping a truck-load of missiles to a terrorist organization we still should have to power (if not the right) to blow the convoy up.
YanıtlaSilI think preemptive war is here to stay. And as long as it is a Democratic president waging it, the Democrats will suddenly be quite fine with it. They're already preparing themselves for the reality that war with Iran is almost inevitable under a President Obama.
YanıtlaSilPersonally, I believe that the policy is a disastrous one, but then that won't surprise anyone who remembers my debates with Nomad from a year or two ago. =)
And you know, Ward, I agree with you now.
YanıtlaSilI think that in many ways GWB (as a result of 9/11) is an anomaly among presidents and with the next one the old adage that 'democratic presidents cut the size of the military and want to use it everywhere while republican presidents increase the size of the military and keep it home' will become true again.
YanıtlaSil