Preemption 2009

Max Boot, writing for Foreign Policy asks "Whatever Happened to Preemption?

It is an interesting question. The cynic might agree with Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War) in saying:  "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." While that might describe the world as seen by Dr Henry Kissinger, it is not how we as Americans view ourselves.

But, that said, Max Boot does push the right buttons. Should the French and British have preempted Germany in the mid-1930s? Would that have saved millions of lives?

But, he isn't really interested in alternative history. He is asking about today and the future. He talks about possible nuclear terrorism and he discusses Pakistan and Iran.

Max Boot asks:

No wonder there is general agreement across the U.S. political spectrum that, as President-elect Barack Obama said in the second presidential debate in October, "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon." Yet what is he actually prepared to do to stop the mullahs?

For Max Boot the problems are hard and the downside of preemption--see Iraq as an example--can be large. So he ends up noting:

We Americans shy away from preemptive action because we can imagine all too clearly the costs of action. But we lack the imagination to see the costs of inaction. Or, rather, we can imagine the costs, but we tell ourselves, fingers crossed, that we may never have to pay them. Perhaps we will not live to see a major attack, emanating from Pakistan or Iran, on our soil or the soil of an allied country. Perhaps we will indeed dodge the bullet -- or, more aptly, the bomb. Or perhaps not.

The idea of preemption has always been hard. In the area of nuclear strategy we got into fine distinctions between deterrence, launch under attack, launch on warning and preemption. This area is one that the citizens need to inform themselves about and discuss.

Fortunately today we have the World Wide Web to help us hold this discussion.

Regards -- Cliff