Today, President Bush reaffirmed his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states who possess nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Bush's stance on warfare shifts American policy from decades of deterrence to a more aggressive approach of "attacking enemies before they attack us." (Read more here.)
Preemptive war makes me nervous. The basis to strike Iraq was made on the premise that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Such WMDs have remained elusive and so the American people are left wondering why we entered this war in the first place.
It is naive to justify the War in Iraq on the conclusion that we had to strike back after 9/11. I've heard this excuse many times and my reply is this: we did strike back against Al Qaeda---in Afghanistan. But now we are embroiled in a war that may last another decade in Iraq while Osama Bin Laden remains at large. Undoubtedly, he and his henchmen in Pakistan and Afghanistan are cooking up plans for another attack on the United States and her allies. Furthermore, U.S. involvement in Iraq has stretched our military and resources so thin that we are unable to send troops to Darfur or other countries that need dire assistance.
I admit as a history major that it is too soon to tell whether or not the War in Iraq will be a heartbreaking tragedy like Vietnam or an overwhelming victory. Only history will be able to make this judgment.
Who knows though? Maybe Bush's preemptive war strategy prevented Saddam Hussein from bombing America with nuclear weapons. But maybe the War in Iraq is merely creating a breeding ground for future terrorists. Maybe it is blinding us to the attacks that Al-Qaeda is planning against us.
