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 fodder for propaganda to promote unilateralism and preemptive strikes on other nations. In spite of the huge practical leap from Bin Laden to Iraq, the administration launched its attacks on that nation with impunity and in spite of massive international opposition. The willingness of the American government to act without the slightest respect for the United Nations proves that America as a whole is under the spell of a cultural superiority complex. This complex is not only psychologically dangerous, potentially racially motivated: it also points to lethal consequences. The development and eventual deployment of sophisticated weapons of mass destruction remains relatively unchallenged; those who dare to oppose the American military risk being labeled as a traitor to the nation and a promoter of terrorist ideals. Moreover, propagating America's nuclear arsenal shows that the Bush administration's policies are hypocritical and based on the belief that Western European civilization is inherently superior to any other culture on earth.
Concurrent with the doctrine of fear, the cultural superiority complex from which Americans suffer causes us to imagine that terrorism is a massive display of envy. Amazingly arrogant, this assumption poisons the minds of American citizens even further. While it is genuinely possible and perhaps totally true that the disenfranchised people of the world do harbor resentments based on envy, envy alone cannot account for terrorist...
Even if envy were the primary motivator for terrorists, preemptive striking does nothing to curb the current wave of violence. America practices unilateral preemptive strikes for the same reasons schoolyard bullies take the first punch: because they can. Preemptive striking is the mark of bravado, an unquestionable assertion of dominance on a global scale. To react without a brash and irrational display of military force would seem weak in the eyes of most Americans who support Bush.
In his article "The Longest War," Victor David Hansen states, "Multiculturalism, conflict-resolution theory, postmodernism, pacifism, and a host of other new isms and ologies all sought to achieve a kinder world where equality of results would be enforced rather than equality of opportunity ensured, where injustice, disagreement, and thus war itself could somehow disappear." He also declares that history clearly teaches that war is not only inevitable but in fact necessary "to ensure that thousands now and millions later will not grow up to be murdered under terror and fascism." On the outset, Hansen's argument is plausible: for example, Hitler had to be stopped and to stop him required the use of force. However, such analogies do not apply to the current situation for one main reason: the United States does not invade other nations out of altruism or a concern for the well-being of future generations. The United States, as it has shown by its record in Central and South America, supports brutal dictatorships over benevolent socialism for economic and political gains. The United States has also ignored incredible social injustice the likes of Pol Pot, thus proving that preemptive striking is not really carried out to make the world a better, safer place. There is every reason to believe that Saddam Hussain will not be replaced by a functioning democracy. By its very nature, democracy cannot be imposed on a people, but rather it arises out of the collective agreement…
Of course, the timeline for the defensive line of attack or its initiation during the armed assault is also a determinant of whether the line of attack can be called defensive or a new attack. A good example of this could have been 9/11 where the U.S. government could have reacted with an armed line of self-defensive attacks if they feared that the first attack on the World trade
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
U.S. INVADED IRAQ IN 2003 Why U.S. Invade Iraq 2003 invasion of Iraq has a number of forceful effects that relate to the influence of the 9/11 occurrence in the country. The then U.S. president who happened to have been President Bush pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq amidst the actions that Saddam had done to the U.S. In most avenues of performance, it is clear that the U.S. attack
Quoted in "Strengthen Alliances..." Chapter III of "NSS" paper) Not long after the unveiling of the Bush doctrine vide the NSS, the United States demonstrated its practical application by taking unilateral military action against Iraq despite opposition from most of its key allies and not having a specific UN Resolution to do so. US Hegemony: Another key feature of the Bush doctrine that appeared in the NSS was that the United States
Politics International Trade-Offs In international policy, as in the course of daily human life, self-interested actors must carefully weigh competing and often equally valid choices, and make for themselves some compromise between opposed values. It seems that as often as one is able to solve a problem, one notices that the very solution causes problems of its own. An unmitigated good is difficult to find even in one person's individual life, and