Unilateralism and Preemptive Defense

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 attacks. 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 and cooperation of a group of citizens. The Bush administration is culturally blind and will not recognize the innate differences between American and Iraqi political needs.

Granted, the political systems of many nations leave a lot to be desired and the world would be a better place without systematic cruelty, corruption, and oppression. As Jackson Diehl states in his Washington Post article "The Accidental Imperialist," "inaction seemed the worst choice." Intervention is often the humane, just, ethical course of action. In fact, if the United States did act out of genuine concern for the people of Iraq, as it claimed to do, preemptive strikes could be ethically justified. If the United States did take it upon itself to help those who suffer through the use of military force, however, the action would still require a large degree of international support. Unilateralism precludes global harmony because it creates an unnatural, unwanted, unwarranted hierarchy with the United States as the giant patriarch.

Furthermore, the proactive course of meliorist military philosophy is falsely hopeful. Rather than promoting deep changes in human consciousness, meliorist militarism relies on outmoded habits. Because it is based on the constant threat of invasion and on persistent fear, Sagan's "cosmic perspective" also serves to basically promulgate the darkest and most destructive forces in human nature. To believe that human nature is bent on self-destruction does nothing to promote positive change or better the world. Meliorism quickly turns into nihilism when the philosophy underlying proactive measures is based on such a dim view of humanity. Hansen does correctly point out that the course of human history proves that violence may be hard-wired into our brains, and it is possible that preemptive strikes are the only means to squelch burgeoning terrorism. Unfortunately, this view neglects a basic truth: unilateral preemptive strikes are not feasible in a nuclear age in which weapons can decimate entire regions of the globe.