Who likes the Bush Docrine of Pre- emptive strikes ? Why ?

Question

When you think about it alot of people live that way every day and have done so for all of time. Hitting someone who is about to hit you - nailing them and rendering them incapable of hurting you in any way. Of course you have to prove it or make it look plausible that they were indeed going to. Look what happened when this was not used - there has not been another attack inside the US since this policy was carried out.

Answer 1

Yeah, but it's dangerous to wait until we're positive they're going to strike us. We better hit them just because we're suspicious of them. Well, they might be good bluffers. We'll hit anyone who has the CAPABILITY of striking us. But they could be hiding their weapons. Shoot, let's just invade and conquer everybody. Yeah, THAT makes sense.

Answer 2

Wow that's a good question. It's a fine policy but for it to work the following conditions MUST be met:

1.) There is irrefutable proof the attacks was going to take place.
2.) If it is not a sovereign entity i.e. a terrorist group within a sovereign state the US MUST prove that the government was not willing to stop the attack on it's own.

Having said that Bush's policy has lost a lot of credibility because of Iraq. If Bush tries it now other countries will just claim that it is another Bush initiated invasion based on false or invented threats.
I was initially a Bush supporter and a Desert Storm vet. But on Iraq I believe Bush has hurt US credibility. Even when we would be right to attack as a means of defense he has handicapped this policy.

Answer 3

The irony was that the US criticized China last month for rebuilding its military. The Bush administration and the Pentagon feared that China might gain the capability to use its military to launch "pre-emptive strikes" against other smaller nations in Asia.

It's funny that the US complains about the same "pre-emptive strike" doctrine that the Bush administration adhered to, when the same doctrine might be practiced by other nations such as China or Russia.

Answer 4

Would you prefer for civilians to have been killed before we strike.

I was struck in reading the 9/11 Commission Report how many plans the Clinton Administration had to get Osama. His advisors did not believe in pre-emptive action, Clinton had no problem with it but wanted success. He was about to issue orders to go into Afghanistan when intelligence had Osama on the move and our action would have been a useless gesture.

So if Clinton was for pre-emptive action I can see all of the Presidential candiates for it, but none vocally.

Answer 5

The preemptive strike is exactly what the Germans were doing when they invaded Poland in 1939. They too claimed it was a counter attack just like Bush did to justify his war.

Answer 6

Any time one demonstrates intent and capability to harm, they have demonstrated there need to be a target. Action beats reaction. Just as many asked why we did nothing to prevent 9/11, I ask why they now try to prevent us from stopping the next one.

Terrorists are terrorists, regardless of who their current target is. They must be rooted out and eliminated regardless of where they are. The only difference is that we must strike those with intentions on us first.

Answer 7

You mean preemptice strikes like :

Grenada
Panama
Haiti
Serbia
Sudan

It is not a new policy, America has always used force when it is determined to be in our best interest.

Answer 8

I support it.

The best defense is a good offense.

Answer 9

Yes.
Every American should like it.
(Except for Democrats, that is.)