It’s a rare time when the attention of the entire world is
focused on just one thing. From presidents and protesters, to kings
and criminals, the world’s spotlight has been fixed on
President George W. Bush and his plans for Iraq.
And while the Bush administration insists that an armed conflict
with Iraq could be avoided if certain conditions are met,
it’s clear that the drums of war are growing louder and
louder with each passing day.
Yet hidden among the debates between the doves and hawks is a
principle whose impact reaches far further than the streets of
Baghdad. It will affect American foreign policy far longer than the
few months that troops will be fighting in the sand. If Bush
decides to take the United States to war against Iraq, it will be a
highly publicized war of preemption.
Doing so deviates from prior policy that a name has been created
for this new philosophy, the Bush doctrine. The Bush doctrine aims
to stop problems before they grow too large. It’s like
spraying Neosporin on a cut. Sure it stings a little now, but it
prevents a much larger problem of infection developing later. Bush
summed it up when he said in his National Security Strategy,
“America will act against such emerging threats before they
are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends by
hoping for the best … In the new world we have entered, the only
path to peace and security is the path of action.”
Clearly, Bush feels that Saddam Hussein is brewing big vats of
anthrax with the United States’ name on it. And Bush wants to
stop him before he can harm the United States or its allies. On the
surface, this is a great idea. Iraq probably does have weapons of
mass destruction and probably will use them at some point. So
taking preemptive action against Iraq could save thousands of
lives.
However, it’s the precedent of preemptive action that has
so many people worried. The concept of a war where the United
States fires the first shot is a foreign one to many Americans;
especially to those who were raised to believe that the United
States never engages in offensive wars, that we are a nation that
takes up arms only when attacked.
Opponents of Bush claim then raise the question, “where do
you stop?” The United States will undoubtedly defeat Iraq on
the battlefield, and we might even install a pro-U.S. government
there. But after that, things get tricky. Iraq isn’t the only
thorn in the United States’ side. If we follow preemptive
precedent, do we attack and disarm North Korea or bring down the
government of Iran? During a debate at Oxford University, the New
York Times reported 151 out of 346 people voted that the United
States was the “world’s biggest threat to peace.”
This preemptive precedence could just lead to more worldwide
violence.
Odds are that the United States is headed to fight a preemptive
war with Iraq, using the principles of the Bush doctrine as
justification. Perhaps preemption is the only way to fight in this
post-Sept. 11, 2001 world; taking out the terrorists and their
supporters before they can harm American citizens.
And apparently, Bush has made that decision. But our president
could be sending the world down a slippery slope of foreign policy
by setting a preemptive precedent.
Ludlow is a second-year political science student. E-mail him at
dludlow@media.ucla.edu.