Preemption v. Prevention

When the primary reason for the War in Iraq - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that threatened us and our allies in the region - came up empty, the Bush - Cheney Administration moved on to less salient reasons for its action, e.g. ridding the world of a wicked tyrant.

As the American people became dubious of the value of the incursion into Iraq that appeared to divert resources away from our efforts in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, the President and his surrogates acted aggressively to backfill the arguments. Their message: no matter that WMDs were not found, we did the right thing in attacking Baghdad as Saddam posed a long term threat in the region and to us directly. Now that's a lot more dicey from the perspective of the world community and international law.

Obviously, if a government sees a build up in an enemy that, based on its best intelligence and the actions and statements of the threatening country, imperils its citizens, it is not - in itself - a violation of international law to preemptively strike that nation. Such action is always questionable, however, and, as you will recall, Hitler used this line of argument - overtly false - to attack Poland in 1939, setting off W.W. II.

On the other hand, the president's latest argument that prevention rather than preemption was sufficient basis for the attack creates a completely new ball game as it relates to international law and common sense.

Many countries act in ways that are not in the best interest of the U.S. For example, China threatens us in the Formosa Straits; India and Pakistan are in a long term nuclear standoff that involves us all; the use of oil as an economic weapon is threatened by a number of countries, including Venezuela. All of these actions could be considered threatening, but our self interest and international pressure and law prohibit our attacking them. Thank God!

Iraq will be a scar on this presidency that will grow more ugly as the events recede into history. Win or lose in November, the president has made a gross error of judgment that we will have to live with for a generation or longer. We are less able to fight the war on terror and we have stirred animosity against the U.S. in places undreamed of before this debacle.

The War in Iraq has made us less safe from terrorism, and it has wasted precious resources that could be being used right this moment to hunt down and destroy our enemies. Sad!

Wildbill944