Preemptive and Retaliation Policy Many

Preemptive and Retaliation Policy

Many nations around the world have a preemptive policy when it comes to fighting against terrorism in addition to their retaliation policy. For years, the United States held fast with retaliation policy while never moving into the preemptive arena until recently. Following the events of 9-11 the United States adopted a combination retaliation and preemption policy for countering terrorism. There are several pluses for this decision as well as problems.

Countering terrorism has become a serious topic of debate throughout the United States. While most people support a policy of retaliation there are fewer who support a policy of preemption. In 2002 President George Bush issues the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America ("National Security Strategy"). (1) Expanding this country's right of preemption in foreign affairs -- a right known formally as "anticipatory self-defense" under international law (Beres, 2002)."

It allows for the United States to strike first in any instance where the federal government believes there is an emergent threat to the United States.

On the plus side of such a policy the U.S. is able to ferret out terrorist plots and plans and thwart them through the use of military preemptive strikes. On the negative side of the policy however, is the debate about whether assassinations of terrorist leaders is (10 Considered a fair preemptive action (2) or is it murder based in something that might or might not happen in the future (Beres, 2002).

The policy to strike before being struck is not a new concept. It is one that has been used for centuries around the world.

The right of self-defense by forestalling an attack was already established by Hugo Grotius in Book II of the Law of War and Peace in 1625(Beres, 2002)."

One of the most significant issues with a preemptive policy is the fact it can also be used to move federal interests forward with a claim that the action was a preemptive move because of a future terrorist threat.

If the power to order a preemptive strike falls into the wrong hands it can be used to garner political, economic, and strategic strength when no actual threat of terrorism existed.

With regard to the retaliation policy, the U.S. can benefit from it because it allows a reaction to terrorist attacks, that will in turn serve as worldwide notification that attacks on the U.S. will not be tolerated. The problem with a retaliation policy is that even though it may seem like the right move, it could also trigger another world war if there is a global disagreement about the retaliation.

Both the retaliation and preemption policies have strengths and weaknesses. As long as the government officials charged with using the policies are fair, objective and human in that power the policy will serve the U.S. well.