One of the more prevalent threads in the debate over the Iraqi war is whether or not pre-emptive attacks in the current environment of WMD is justified, and, if so, in what circumstances. This is really a new development in world history and global politics and legality, as WMD create a situation where a first strike, even by a relative small country militarily, can be exceedingly devastating. This, I think, leads to a valid question as to whether or not existing 'norms' in this area still apply (ie, wait until attacked before responding defensively). So, question number one:

Under what circumstances, if any, should preemptive strikes be justified?

I think a similar situation, which might be very related to this (as it was in Iraq) is whether or not the US should ever be the world's policeman. We are villified by one side or the other whether we act or don't act. Often, the determining factor seems to be whether the issue also affects US security (which is why I wanted to put this in the same thread). So, question two:

Under what circumstances, if any, should the US play a primary military role in actions that are more of a humanitarian nature?

(Note--please keep this generic: there are certainly enough threads on Iraq already. The criteria should, be definition, situation independent. If you need to use Iraq and, say, N. Korea, for examples, please do. But I want to avoid this thread becoming another pro vs. con on actions already undertaken).

My thoughts on this are that WMD certainly present a new paradigm in threat reaction. It is quite possible for a single entity (terrorist group, country, regime, faction, whatever) to present a very plausible threat to exterminate millions of people in a single blow. Given that, waiting until after the fact doesn't seem to be an acceptable course of action. However, neither do I feel that any country should just go about willy-nilly after any group that just might fit that category, either. There would need to be some substantial evidence that the threat exists and is real, and, if the situation permits (which might not always be the case) suitable diplomatic efforts are undertaken first. I also think the liklihood of successfully eliminating the threat would have to be a large factor, as well as the ramifications of the attack (ie--clearly, you could probably remove the threat through wholesale nuclear devastation, but that would have huge negative ramifications).

As for the 'world cop' issue, I think the US (or any other country) needs to have a very clearly defined policy on this. This will both help in justifying any future action, and might also help the curb such activity before it reaches that stage. I would think that the criteria would have to include the following:

1. Clear evidence of large scale, violent human rights violations.
2. Clear evidence that such violations are occurring against the will of the majority, or at least a significant minority, of the people.
3. Clear evidence that the situation can be solved, or at least greatly alleviated, through military intervention.
4. Support from the world body for the intervention.
5. Support from the domestic population for the intervention.

I do not feel that US security should necessarily enter into the picture, as human rights violations are seldom done specifically as a threat to someone else's security. Either we should accept a role as world cop, or all issues should be solely national security concerns. Allowing the two to intermix creates too much ambiguity, and leads to the current situation where we seem to pick and choose our fights, leaving one side or the other openly critical of our actions.

This should require convincing evidence of a clear and eminent danger to the United States. Period. (The Iraq situation, for example, did not meet that standard.) This standard would likely never need to come into play, as any nation would be comitting suicide to attack the US or threaten to do so.



None whatsoever. US citizens should be free to help in such a cause in any way they feel compelled to, but the US government should not get involved.

I'm curious if you feel that any of the US's past "world cop" interventions met your 5-point standard.



I agree 100% with your "either/or" and the reasoning behind it. But I choose option number 2.

Direct national interest or security concerns MUST exist before embroiling our nation in any foreign conflict and before sending our sons and daughters to their deaths. War (or otherwise named conflict) is not a cakewalk. People die, people are dismembered, people are mutilated. Sons leave home never to return. Others come back either perminantly maimed or changed for the rest of their lives. It is not our job, as a nation, to put our lives and wellbeing on the line for everyone else.

John Quincy Adams said it well:


So if I understand "intervention" to mean entrance into armed conflict when no compelling national interest exists, then I say that intervention is NEVER justified.

If we are to enter into armed conflict with a foreign power, it should ONLY be after a formal, Constitutional, Congressional Declaration of War. Anything else constitutes a breach of the Constitution.

I think this is a thoughtful list of reasons. However when there is no demonstrated immediate danger I think a long diplomatic process should be employed.

I think national security interests should be a consideration.
I also think that a clearly defined objective for the mission is needed.

But mostly I believe that war should be a very last resort and that dangerous people like Castro and Khadafi (sp?) can be isolated and marginalized as leaders of rogue nations.

One of my primary problems with the idea of intervention is that it is almost inherently Unconstitutional. The only Constitutional use of US armed forces is in defense of our nation -- not defense of other nations or to bring about someone's ideals in a foreign country. And at that, it can only be placed into action by a Constitutional Congressional declaration of war. Without this, any foreign deployment of the US military is Unconstitutional.

That would mean that "police actions", "peacekeeping", etc, is Unconstitutional since it does not involve a Congressional declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

We MUST return to the Constitution. If we continue to tear it up and throw it out the window, it will not be long before we find ourselves out of control (if we aren't already).

This statement is absolutely on target. Congress is willing to fund military "adventures" without actually having to declare "war". This is wrong and we need to vote people into office who have more... ummm... cajones?

When is a pre-emptive attack justified? Well, never, really. It implies that we're attacking before an immediate danger -- to ourselves or to those with whom we have mutual defense treaties -- presents itself. That implies that we haven't done our diplomatic homework to head the problem off (which is definitely true in Iraq).

By the way: Kosovo wasn't a pre-emptive strike; war was already going on there and we just joined in on the side of those who were losing the fight and NATO was in charge of that adventure (to prevent a possible enlargening of the war, a la World War I). Ok, I drifted a bit.

True as this may be, I think you would agree that this was still an Unconstitutional action as it was not preceeded by a Congressional declaration of war as required by the Constitution.

As for alliances, I would really like us to return to the view of the Founders that holds that we should avoid perminant entangling foreign alliances like the Plauge!

I am against military interventions which are not in the US interests. Many threads throughout this forum demonstrate exactly why this is a bad idea. Innocent people die on the other side, as well as our own, when we use aggression and we make a lot of enemies. I believe in peacekeeping but not peacemaking. My criteria is the following:

1.If there is a reasonable and VERY compelling expectation that attack is imminent. Today, with modern technology and communications, catastrophic attacks can occur with little or no warning. The president should (and does) have the authority to defend America from attack, even in the absence of congressional authorization, for up to 90 days. That was granted by the War Powers Resolution. Pre-emptive strikes are reasonable under those conditions. You don't have to wait until you're shot to shoot the person pointing a gun at you.

The United States government alone has the authority to determine what constitutes a threat to its citizens. We have the inherent right to self defense, and do not have to wait for UN approval to act on our own defense. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."

2. If we are directly attacked.

3. If one of our close allies experiences criteria 1 or 2, we should aid them.

I believe our intervention in Afghanistan satisfied the above criteria, but not Iraq.

To clarify this: only SOME of the founding fathers -- Adams comes to mind -- thought we should avoid alliances.

Jefferson and Franklin were on the other side of the coin, and it was those foreign alliances that helped ensure victory in our Revolutionary War (France's help with Britain's Navy and with the Indians) AND got us half our country on the cheap (the Louisiana Purchase by Jefferson).

When there is a coup in a nation, only military intervention is justified when U.S. Embassy personnel or American citizens are threatened. For example, the Iranian Embassy incident would justify intervention and military force. But if the coup leaders allow American personnel and citizens leave, then no intervention is justified

We had a treaty with France from 1778 but it was with the government that was overthrown by the French Revolution.

Washington crafted a policy of neutrality in response to the bloody turn of events in France (although he deliberately avoided using the term neutrality)

Jefferson and Hamilton both supported this policy. (A rare point of agreement)
Adams and Jefferson both tried to apply this policy while our ships were routinely seized by both nations. (GB and France)

No alliance helped us gain the Louisiana Purchase. ( the Louisiana Purchase was called the LA Purchase Treaty though)

Our foreign policy has to adapt to the international environment of the day. I favor proactive diplomatic activity, but I see very few instances in which a preemptive strike can be justified without broad international support. This is because wars of aggression are against international law, and expectations to this rule should be broadly agreed upon. While I do not see an UN Security COuncil resolution as a necessity I think we should have support of three of the other permanent members on that council (unless we see both of those members as part of the need for the attack) The point is that there should be a broader consensus for such an attack because preemptive strikes are generally speaking, wrong.

The opinions on this thread seemed tied in with the 'nationality vs. cosmopolitan' thread elsewhere in this forum. The world cop issue seems to come down to this basic question: Is it worthwhile to expend some US lives (and money, but that's not really the issue) to achieve greater good around the world. Those opposed, I think, would answer no, while those in agreement would have to answer yes. I'm torn. I would have to say I am in favor of the concept, as there are many situations where great good can be achieved with minimal loss of life. For example, in the case of what's going on in Africa, I could see situations where literally thousands or perhaps tens of thousand of lives could be saved and made better, with probably only a handful of US casualties. Are, say, 10 Americans worth the lives of 10,000 Africans? There are valid arguments on both sides. To me, what might tilt the scale would be whether or not intervening would also be likely to increase peace in the area long-term. If so, then those 10 Americans would actually be achieving greater security for America. On the other hand, if the intervention is unlikely to result in any long-term change, then those 10 lives have perhaps been sacrificed needlessly. But I do see how the military could be used in these situations as a diplomatic tool, as great goodwill is generated if you demonstrate that you are willing to sacrifice some of your own in order to promote your ideals of peace and freedom around the world.

Oh really?



I could quote many more.

intervention...hmmm

certainly number 1 would and should be the possibility of threat.

There are many collateral reasons which really would end in what the WHOLE picture would be.

Threat to us. threat to the citizens of that country. threat to region. threat to overall planetary harmony. you know...world peace.

I am really against the idea of JUST "peacekeeping" as this seems to be just administering a baby aspirin to a grand mal seizure. american soldiers get slaughtered for the temporary safety of another? no. If americans are going to give up their lives it better not be a half-arsed attempt. Regime change where logistically possible and with all the threat to the US that goes along with it.

Being the world's babysitter, or policeman, is too dangerous a job and yields little in the way of progress. I would never be for it. never.

I am glad Bush was able to enact a regime change in Liberia without having sacrificed one troop. While I may not agree with Bush on everything, I DO wholeheartedly agree with the policy he has taken in Iraq. Without regime change where people are being slaughtered for decades, where the regime has presented a threat to us and neighbors for decades, where little progress is made BY the regime to "rehabilitate, what in the world is the point?

The problem we have here is non-intervention except under imminent threat works well with nations where you can make educated guesses as to what possible acts of aggression they are up to. Sadly, we are always under threat of a terrorist attack, and MAD does not work with terrorists. In the short term all we can do is attack the terrorists resources. In the long term we need to return to protecting our borders and withdrawal from military intervention around the world, which simply provoke more antagonism.

To tell you the truth, I do not see the United States as the "world's policeman". I see it as a nation like every other nation, that pursues action that would be in their best interests.

This is a practice that is exrcised by every other country on Earth, however, it appears when the United States acts in such a manner, it is frowned upon.

The everlasting the struggle for power, I suppose.

Of course, it would only be froqwned upon if it had effected that particular nation. No one ever complains when they are the beneficiaries.

I think some of you anti-war believers have the truest and sincerest of intentions at heart, but I am afraid that the majority of you have never either served in the military or have a good enough grasp of the true realities behind the wars that our great nation has fought in.
I resent being lectured about war as being one where "people get killed, mutilated, destroyed...", especially coming from people who have never been in combat, or people who have never known someone who has experienced combat.
As for myself, I will say that my father was a foreign national living in this most blessed of nations for over fifteen years before the Day of Infamy occured. That is the day that changed not just his life, but the course of the rest of humanity forever. No one appreciated and loved this country more than my father, and he never once moaned, griped, and complained about his experiences in NYC during the Great Depression and during his combat days at Okinawa, Mindanao, and the Philippines.
I joined the US Army, like he did, but during peacetime, during the great Reagan years, which are systematically being distorted by a great portion of our liberal media and many other un-American groups out there as we speak. The military is not full of morons, rejects, and psychos, like many of you liberals love to portray us to the vast public. We love this country on average more than any of you people could ever fathom, and we come as whited, Latinos, blacks, Asians, women, Indians, Arabs, and yes, gays and lesbians, as well.
For some of you civilians who have never served to imply that we don't know what our leadership is telling us to do is insulting. We know better than any of those arrogant, condescending liberal professors with triple Ph.D's in political science what is really going on in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and North Korea. We also know that our president, whom we overwhelmingly love and respect, both as commander, president, and as a human being, is doing his utmost to protect the interests of this beautiful, rich, and powerfully blessed nation.
Sure, this administration has made errors along the way, but their goals are to secure the peace in the entire Middle East, and if democratizing that region is the best way to serve that purpose, then why are his detractors not able to see this? They even point out outlandish and ridiculous plots of nepotism, corruption, and imperialism, which just shows how warped the minds of some Americans are today, specifically the most radical of liberals. The people have spoken, in poll after liberally taken poll, and when our great president ACTUALLY starts to campaign OFFICIALLY, which he has not done yet, then is when you will see these "doubting" groups of Americans rally to his causes, mark my word!

AmericanFirst63:

I certainly don't disrespect people in the military. In fact, I have the utmost respect for our military to the point that I think it is disrespectful for them to be mistreated by being sent to die all over the world for somebody else's problems. After all, we're not really discussing Iraq. We're discussing intervention, which more describes actions like Bosnia, Liberia, Somalia, etc than anything else. If the conflict does not threaten us directly and if there is no vital interest at stake, I don't think sending our people to fight and die can be justified. That's all I'm saying, and I think that's pretty much along similar lines with what others have been saying in this thread. So there is no disrespect intended, but rather respect.

why would they even be over there if there was no vital interest at stake?

They could be "over there" at the behest of the UN serving a purpose in a conflict that has no direct impact on the US but in which we nevertheless embroil ourselves because it's the "politically correct" thing to do. Or we could be involved because of a non-vital interest, perhaps even a private or business interest. Or it could be for other corrupt purposes.

I don't think we should be intervening in Iraq. The whole middle east(with the exception of Israel) considers us outsiders. Pray tell,how are we going to convince Iraqi people that we are there for their good. Sure,I agree Saddam was every brutal(but he is only one out of 10 or more dictators,with conditions just as bad).If you believe we should intervene in Iraq,how about North Korea,Burma,Sudan,Iran and various African nations. We would be stretch pretty thin wouldn't we.

As far as people that disagree with you and they don't know what it is like to be in the military or combat. I have news for you son,I was in the Phillipines and Vietnam and I was scared *_#$*&$%. That is why I am against this war in Iraq,because of the lives being lost and 10 or 15 years from now it won't make any difference.

Those people in the middle east don't want us. Their religion is different than anything we are accustomed to.

Every night I see fathers,mothers,sons,siblings crying for their loved ones that have died in a forsaken land for NOTHING except a president wishes and desires to 'BRING THEM ON'. What if you lived in a country being invaded and someone said that to you. I would think what is this cocky person doing to incite me. Good words on his part, and we are supposed to put our trust and faith in this person. My momma didn't raise a fool. The good lord hopefully gave me a good enough brain to think better than that

So, it wouldn't be to stabilize the seemingly "bewildered" Eastern European blocs, suffering from a great deal of backlash as a result of Communist oppression.

In either case, I did not approve of Clinton's foreign policy, as he essentially surrendered the soverignty of the United States to a an essentially irrelevant organization, which did not conform with the best interests of the United States, and contain nations within such an organization that wish to do America harm.

Richard Nixon was president of the United States from 1968 to 1974. Since leaving office, he has become an unofficial foreign policy advisor to several presidents and has written numerous books from which the following viewpoint is excerpted. In the viewpoint, Nixon maintains that the United States is the only nation capable of leading the world because it is the only nation with democratic ideals and the necessary military and economic power. He concludes that it is America’s duty to guide the world into the twenty-first century.

Question for the audience:

Help me out with my LD Debate case and I will love you forever!

Resolved: The U.S has the moral obligation to mitigate international conflict.

For the affirmative I am basing my whole case around foreign policy and I need to know, what philosophy or philosopher if any, supports foreign policy in any way.

[QUOTE]

It is justified when our security and/or economic interests are threatened. Iraq fills both criteria. 12 years of unfulfilled UN resolutions and a madman with WMD in the midst of more than ½ the worlds oil.

To say Saddam could not have passed WMD to Al Queda is ludicrous. He had tons of VX and weaponized anthrax. We saw what just 2 teaspoons full of anthrax did to our postal system. Should we wait for VX or anthrax in the air handling system of a high-rise with the potential for thousands of casualties?

Or to quote Hillary in 1998:


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

I believe that National interest is NOT the only reason to go to war.

People say we must think carefully before condeming our Sons to death, but I view the death of a foriegn individual in the same wieght, since Nationalism is somehting which I do not care for.

In this light, I think we should intervene when peoples liberty is being impeached in the most extreme way - violence, death and ethnic cleansing.

As the most powerful nation in the world and the west's greater development we have a duty, as samaritans to help those in need. We fought two big wars and many smaller ones this century protecting Europe from the clutches of hatred and suffering. it would be an insult to those who lost thier lives protecting freedom to let tyranny emerge once again. Africe is a stain on our planet, the Balkans is probably another ticking time bomb, the Middle east is a breeding ground of religous, sexual and poltical intolerance.

We cannot intervene everywhere and even we do it is not clear what the solution to the problem is, however sitting on the fence is apathetic to a degree verging on supreme selfishness or at the very least siding with moral relativism, but remember - "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." Martin Luther King.

I don't agree. If security, economic or political interests are threatened, then I would hope that the administration would pursue action, as it directly effects us at home. I also happen to believe in maintaining American super-power status. Anyone who doesn't believe in such an ideal, then they are clearly unpatriotic.

With might, comes the capability of acheiving greater standing. With such power, we have considerable influence to wield, and thus, can acheive our policy goals more effectively then we would otherwise.

By the way, I am glad to see a democrat support a viable condidate for Presidency. I can assure you that if the Democrats want my vote in 2004, they had better nominate Clark.

Ok than why would you have a problem going to war with Iraq? Iraq gassed it’s own people and “ethnic cleansing” was another serious crime of the Saddam regime. They are uncovering the bodies of 300,000 + people as we speak.

Did their lives and death mean anything? And as far as “peoples liberty is being impeached in the most extreme way - violence, death and ethnic cleansing.” Who has done it better than Saddam? Stalin?



Thus over and above the WMD issue Saddam and his thugs were monsters who needed to be dealt with exactly as we have.

Intervention is called for when:
America or its terroritories abroad are under attack, there is sufficient evidence that an attack will occur, or if an ally is under attack that is purely agression.

CP

Ok, then how do you justify an intervention. Say what you will about WMD programs, NOBODY believes the British claim (that has been disproved) that Iraq could have deployed WMD right away. The administration has backed off suggesting that Iraq had any deployable WMD as well, referring to programs and stockpiles.

We 'the United States' should intervene only when;
1. Our national security interests are at stake.
2. We are attacked directly anywhere in the world.
3.We have resonable intelligence that not to attack will result in a danger of attack on ourselves
4. In retaliation for harm done to American citizens while abroad as in the taking of hostages by Iran or by the government any country.
5. Anywhere in the world where we deem it nessacary to stamp out terrorists or their supporters.

The peacekeeping and policeing duties of the world are supposed to be handled by the U.N. Let them do it.
When it is decided that intervention is nessacary there should be no half measures involved. There should also no consideration given to outside opinons once the criteria of military action has been met. To leave the impression that statements or threats by any nation or organization will affect United States decisions of when it may defend itself or its citizens is to continue a policy of dangerous uncertainty and will not result in security of our nation. If it is decided that a rogue nation is a threat to United States interests or security or is planning an attack on us then overwhelming force should be massed and used with no conclusion being acceptable but total and unconditional victory. That premise is the most important one of all, and would go along way in preventing a lot of trouble in the world. The world should be shown with no uncertainity that the United States has clear situations in which it will be moved to military action and that that action will be sure, swift and overwhelming, resulting in the total elimination of whatever threat brought it about. For example the taking of hostages by Iran. If Iran had known for certain that to take those hostages would result in the United States military coming in to get them and that to harm even one of them would result in the sure destruction of that government and military, they would not have been taken in the first place.
This sounds slightly simplistic I realize but humans are fairly simple creatures. The ones in power want primarily to remain in power. History shows that dilussions of granduer usually cause men such as Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, and Saddam to commit or cause to be commited the acts they do. Letting these types of leaders know that the U.S. response to a clear provication will with utmost certainty result in the collapse of their power and possibly their death will allow the U.S. to be free of terrorist attacks, allow our forces to travel about in the world unmolested and our citizens to travel abroad without fear of unlawful detention by rogue governments.