|
In defense of pre-emptive strikes...
The problems implementing pre-emption were foreseen by none other than Machiavelli, when he compared cool statecraft with medical treatment: The more glaring the symptoms of any disease, the more obvious its diagnosis -- but the more difficult its treatment.
By the time a doctor is certain that a patient has lung cancer, the time for effective treatment probably has passed.
The best presidents, like the best doctors, act when their evidence is still inconclusive. Otherwise, the window for effective action passes. If pre-emption does become another war casualty, I fear far more serious casualties before we rid civilization of this scourge of terrorism. And, sadly, that’s not about to happen anytime soon.
A "self-defense and deterrent only" approach has worked in the past, but this approach operates under the assumption that an enemy has a just as strong a self-preservation instinct as you do. Our new enemies do not operate this way. They want to be martyrs. The WANT to die, as long as they can take some of us with them! So this old-fashioned approach will no longer serve us. Pre-emption must be here to stay.
Mike
|