A terrorist network does not seek legitimacy either, but acts without regard for human liberty, human rights, or international law. Terrorist networks speak only for themselves. While nation-states may support them through funding or providing safe havens, terrorist groups are not polities. They do not deserve the juridical considerations due to even the most rogue of nations. The rules for preemptive action must therefore be more flexible with regards to terrorism.
Rogue nations are also of particular concern for the United States today. Together with terrorism, rogue states pose "deadly challenges" to the United States," ("National Security Strategy," p. 13). Rogue states resemble terrorist networks in some ways: most notably by their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and their blatant disregard for international law. Moreover, rogue states often work in tandem with terrorist networks. They may share intelligence, access to weapons, and sources of funding. Together, rogue states and terrorist networks present the most significant security problems for the United States today. Diplomacy is impossible when dealing with rogue nations as well as with terrorism because of the absence of basic moral dignity and trustworthiness that must exist in diplomatic communications.
Preemptive warfare is often the only reasonable solution to the dual problem of transnational terrorism and rogue nation-states. The White House National Security Strategy proclaims, "the greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction, and the more compelling the call for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves," (p. 15). Rogue states and terrorist networks covet and cultivate WMDs including but not limited to nuclear weapons. The severity of the threat cannot be underestimated. In light of the possibility of a terrorist attack using WMDs, not taking preemptive action seems ridiculous.
September 11 drew attention to the severity of the threats against the United States. Since then, preemptive action has minimized the possibility of a future attack. Terrorist networks have been crippled and international security has become fortified. Iraq was a rogue state whose leader has been summarily convicted as a war...
Terrorist networks easily embed themselves in rogue states and thus, the destabilization of Iraq was part of an overall strategy using preemptive warfare. The invasion of Iraq was one of possibly several preemptive attacks in the global war on terror and the United States should continue to use preemptive warfare as part of its defense strategy. Preemptive warfare will nip problems in the bud, taking out terrorists before they can target innocent civilians.
Using a preemptive warfare strategy against rogue nations is sensible strategy for similar reasons. Rogue nations operate outside the boundaries of international law; their leaders terrorize their own citizens and seek to expand their locus of terror abroad. They do not announce their plans, and stand poised to attack at any time. Without a preemptive military strategy, rogue nations could gain the upper hand by acquiring WMDs on the black market and using them against American targets. The real possibility for such an attack has bolstered the efficacy of the Bush doctrine.
Most arguments against preemptive warfare are understandable but unsound in light of the dual threat of rogue states and trans-national terrorism. The war in Iraq was justified in spite of the faulty intelligence, as it will ultimately weaken the potential of terror networks to use Iraq as a base. Preemptive warfare has not been used indiscriminately, or else the United States would have also struck at targets throughout the world wherever terrorist cells are known to operate. Arguments against preemptive strikes often criticize American hegemony, but American hegemony makes global security possible. More than any other single nation, the United States has the potential to combat the worldwide threat of terrorism and will make the world a safer place.
The United States will continue to use non-combative means of preempting terrorist attacks. In fact, the United States continues to cultivate deeper networks with peaceful nations who also wish to extricate terrorism. Improved intelligence services and more specialized military officers will also contribute to the most reasonable solution to global terror.
Ideas to Go: Preemptive Action." Retrieved April 21, 2007 at http://www.intellectualtakeout.com/ideastogo/documents/Preemption-to-Go.pdf
Kacerauskis, Vytautas. "Can a Member of the United Nations Unilaterally Decide to Use Preemptive Force Against Another State Without Violating the UN Charter?" International Journal of Baltic Law. 2(1), 2005.
National Security Strategy of the United States of America." White House. Retrieved April 21, 2007 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
Unilateralism and Preemptive Defense The arguments for unilateralism and preemptive strikes outlined by conservative historians appear logical and well-documented but are essentially wrought with contradiction. In his recent documentary film called Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore delivered the premise that American culture is built on the promotion of fear. Fear underlies American foreign policy, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11. In fact, those attacks offered the Bush administration easy
(MACV Dir 381-41) This document is one of the first confidential memorandums associated with the Phoenix Program, which details in 1967 the mostly U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency intelligence and activities and discusses the future training and development of South Vietnam forces to serve the same function, that had been supported by the U.S. In civilian (mostly CIA) and military roles. The document stresses that the U.S. role is to
The force of the explosion ripped the building from its foundation. The building then imploded upon itself," read a Defense Department report on the attack. "Almost all the occupants were crushed or trapped inside the wreckage (CBS News, 1983)." If one looks at the events of 1983 closely, it is perhaps possible to see what might have occurred differently in the Middle East if the United States had proceeded in a
Powers and Rights of the Constitution INSTITUTIONAL POWER: The Constitution gives the federal government the right to form a military service, including what is now the National Guard (Army National Guard, 2011), though it does so in cooperation with the states and localities to serve their interests as well. This section is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that it reinforces the differences between the state and
Iran's nuclear ambitions a Canadian Strategic Studies point view (politics economics). Explain Minister Foreign Affairs Canada power Iran's nuclear ambitions ( terms economic, financial, military, social, global impacts, global strategy, political implications Canada world, stratagems, warfare capabilities). Iran is at the moment one of the most important players of the international scene and represents a heated subject for debate in all the administrations of the world. Its nuclear program has
20th century has been one of remarkable technological advancements and of increased need to further improve human existence and the speed through which man runs about its everyday life. These ideas alone have demonstrated an immense capacity of man to research and invent new ideas, mechanisms, and to elaborate on the most important technological evolutions to set these mechanisms in motion. However, these evolutions have not been without flaws