Quote:
originaly posted by dragonlich
Pre-emption is *not* flawed if the evidence is strong enough. If the US government has very reliable evidence that Mexican-sponsored terror groups are about to strike at Texas, and the Mexican government doesn't want to stop it, the US has every right (and responsibility) to stop that attack before it happens.
|
Thats not really Bush's doctrine of pre-emption. Thats a response to a specific threat. His concept is attacking nations who sponsor terrorism or engage in it themselves. A category so wide it covers practicaly every nation at some time or another. It is destined to always fail precisely because it uses vague standards for qualification. In the sixties it was often argued we should attack the Soviet Union as "they were out to get us" with first strike nuclear missles. Should we have? Right now you would say it was the wrong thing to do, but which camp would you have been in during the Cuban missle crisis? Guessing whats going on is not a viable foreign policy. I believe, anyway, this administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq and used pre-emption as a convenient device.