Teens Speak Out On War: Preemption Or Prevention?

How Governments Have Prevented War In The Past and What Their Approach Should Be In The Future

Student Excerpts from a 2004 Harry Singer Foundation National Essay Contest

Teens Speak Out On War: Preemption or Prevention Role

How Governments Have Prevented War in the Past and What Their Approach Should Be in the Future

Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan, Editor

W-P

Wellington Publications Carmel, California

The non-partisan Harry Singer Foundation was established in 1988 to promote greater individual participation in government and involvement in social issues. The views expressed here are those of the various students who chose to enter our essay contest and do not necessarily represent the views of the board members and staff of the Foundation.

First Printing Copyright 2008 by Wellington Publications Printed in USA All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher. Inquiries should be addressed to Wellington Publications P.O. Box 223159 Carmel, California 93922 ISBN: 978-0-915915-42-2

Editor's Note: In most cases, students gave the Foundation citations for the material that was quoted in their papers. Because of space constraints, we generally did not include those citations here. Also, in rare instances, material was quoted by students and incorporated in their papers without giving proper credit. We apologize, but must disclaim responsibility as we cannot always tell when a student is quoting from another writer unless quotation marks are used. This is purely an educational exercise.

Who is Harry Singer?

Most people have never heard of Harry Singer. He wasn't a famous politician, a philanthropic industrialist, a creative artist, a martyred preacher or a great inventor-humanitarian. Harry Singer was a common man.
Harry was an immigrant. He came to this country in 1912 from a small village in Russia. He settled in Chelsea, Massachusetts where with his wife and five children he ran a tiny neighborhood grocery store.

Harry could have been your uncle, your brother-in-law, your next door neighbor. He had no lust for power, no great ambitions. He was just a good, kind, quiet man with a keen sense of justice who would jump in when he felt something was wrong. Harry was an egalitarian who showed respect for all men and who was respected in return. It is fitting that a foundation dedicated to encouraging the common man's participation in public policy decisions should be named after Harry. For it is to the Harry Singers of a new generation that we must look if we are to keep America competitive and strong in the world of the twenty-first century. The Harry Singer Foundation came into being because the descendants of the humble egalitarian believe today what President Woodrow Wilson said back in 1912:

"Every country is renewed out of the unknown ranks and not out of the ranks of those already famous and powerful and in control."

About The Harry Singer Foundation (HSF)

The Harry Singer Foundation is a non-profit 501(c) 3 private operating foundation (IRC: 4942 j 3) located in Carmel, California whose purpose is to promote responsibility and involve people more fully in public policy and their communities. It was founded in 1987. It actively conducts programs, and is not a grant-making foundation. The founders believe many people base their decisions on erroneous or too little factual information about public policy, private and public programs, and the effort and goodwill of their fellow citizens. The Harry Singer Foundation has developed programs to help correct this situation, and would like to join with you in helping to make this nation a stronger and better place to live and grow for this generation and generations of Americans to come. The Foundation's focus is on the too often forgotten average citizen. We are not consciously looking to attract future leaders; we feel that job is being handled adequately by a variety of existing foundations. Our goal is to minimize the polarization we see developing in this country between the doers and those done to the rulers and the ruled. We strive to make everyone feel that their thoughts and ideas count; to let them know that they are listened to and that they matter. We want our fellow citizens to understand that a person doesn't have to be brilliant or a great communicator in order to make a difference in America. A person does have to care and does have to participate. Action It is not enough to think, write and talk about the problemswe must show by active example what people are capable of achieving. The goal is to find out what works within a desired framework. When participants learn how to choose what to do without sacrificing the

ii

best American ideals to expediency, the Foundation will provide the opportunity to put some of their ideal choices to the test. The Foundation first concentrated on young people because they are open and eager to learn, are not saddled with a myriad of other social responsibilities (like raising a family and making their own living) and they will be around the longest and therefore have the best opportunity to make their projects work. They are ideal experimenters because time is on their side. Pilot Projects We bring people together to network at our headquarters in Carmel, California. When participants come up with ideas, HSF provides the opportunity to put to the test, those ideas that garner the most enthusiastic response. We do this via pilot projects and interacting with grant-making entities as well as far-sighted businesses. Most businesses rightly have more than altruistic motives. Their main concerns are about maintaining a stable and growth-oriented economy and finding responsible employees. As a side benefit, many of our projects foster these, as well as purely altruistic goals. We know a pilot project has been successfully launched when it attracts enthusiastic volunteers that we call Champions. Champions are drawn to a specific pilot project because they share its objectives. Therefore they are eager to jump at the opportunity to bring aspirations to fruition by adding their own unique approach to managing and expanding the project without having to worry about funding. Of course HSF continues to provide guidance in addition to monetary support. Singer Kids 4 Kids was once a pilot project and Transition to Teaching was a pilot project renamed and adopted by the state of California and adapted to use in securing science and math mentors for Californias classrooms. The HSF Mission The Harry Singer Foundation mission is to prepare participants for a future where there may be less government and a weaker safety net.

iii

Such a future would require greater individual character, responsibility and knowledge. There may be a need for responsible people able to care for themselves and their less fortunate neighbors. The Foundation offers materials online, free of charge, which can be printed and used in the classroom or for individual education or research. The Workbook section of the HSF web site features data to encourage logical thinking and attention to the unintended consequences that often accompany government or personal solutions to perceived problems. HSF believes that society has encouraged technology and management while neglecting principles. We need to consider not only can we do, but should we do. To that end you will find an introduction to the seldom taught subject of logic in this section along with frequently updated ethical dilemmas. Before one can either reflect or help others, one must survive. HSF has archived the thoughts of teens over a twenty year period in the Teens Speak Out and the Archived by State forums as well as in the published books that resulted from 41 of the 46 essay contests the Foundation conducted between 1988 and 2007. Although many of these teen authors now are adults with children of their own, their reflections are relevant to today's youth who must learn to make successful personal and social choices regarding their own ideology and careers. They too must withstand the peer pressure of gangs, violence, irresponsible sex and addictive substances. People change but the social issues remain. The HSF Mission 1988-2008 The following article was written in 1995 by Amy Davidson, a free lance writer and linguistics student at the University of California at Berkeley at the time. This is the result of her observation of the Harry Singer Foundation during winter break her sophomore year. Thought, Words and Action One wouldn't think of Carmel, California, a small coastal town south of Monterey, as a hotbed for community action. However, nestled

iv

between the Cypress trees and the crashing surf, the small group of dedicated people at the Harry Singer Foundation are providing opportunities for Americans to make positive changes in their own communities, across the nation. Programs, designed for the general public but currently focusing on teachers and high school students -- including essay contests, community service project-development, online services, research materials, and curricula development-- all are ways that members of the non-profit Harry Singer Foundation are making a tangible difference in our nation. Founded to preserve both the ideal and the practice of freedom, "HSF aims to help people develop the skills and knowledge essential to the task," according to co-Founder Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan. "Our focus is on the average citizen, and our goal is to motivate him or her to make positive differences in America." Martha Collings, a teacher at Plainview High School in Ardmore, Oklahoma, whose high school students participate in annual HSF essay contests, praised them as "a refreshing change from the usual boring ones we are asked to enter." Her sentiment probably arose from the complex and educationally stimulating components of the contest. Students must incorporate first and second-hand research, classroom discussion, individual analysis, and come up with their own conclusions to timely topics like health care, the media's role in national elections, the government's role in child care, and the importance of responsibility to the proper functioning of the nation.. "This was one of the most challenging and thought-provoking contests my students have entered," said Janet Newton, a teacher from Freeman High School, Rockford, Washington. Another teacher, Jerry McGinley of DeForest High School in DeForest, Wisconsin agreed, saying, "My students put in a great deal

of time and effort reading and discussing the various articles, writing out discussion the questions, and writing the essays." It is likely that these teachers also put in a great deal of time. The HSF contest includes materials and support (through online services, texts, and personnel from the foundation) for an entire lesson plan based around issues raised by the essay topic for a given year. HSF aims to have teachers discuss the topic with their students extensively before the actual writing begins. Teacher Mary Ellen Schoonover of Strasburg High school in Strasburg, Colorado spent a considerable amount of time on assignments and discussions related to the 1994 topic "Responsibility: Who has It and Who Doesn't and What This Means to the Nation." "I felt the Singer essay was a valuable instructional tool," she said. "I incorporated the materials into class by distributing the required reading essays and questions to use as homework assignments with class discussion following each week for four weeks. After discussing the essays, students chose a topic, and classes did library research." The result of this kind of preparation is thousands of well-researched analyses of a topic. The essays are judged by a variety of ordinary citizens and, depending on the topic, a large sampling of attorneys, academics, politicians, financial wizards, other teens and senior citizens. This works because schools are not judged against each other, but only internally, so each school ends up with awards. "That's the big attraction of our contest," explains board member, Donna Glacken. "Every school is a winner. That and the fact that we publish excerpts from the contest and distribute the hard copy book to all 535 members of congress and their state and community politicians and home town media."

vi

Community Involvement Occurred Gradually In the 1992-93 school year, the Harry Singer Foundation extended the reach of its programs. More than five thousand official candidates for national office (most of them unknown) were polled, along with schools and members of the media. Participants were able to see a comparison of poll results among the three categories. The 1993-94 subject of our essay contest: Responsibility: Who Has It and Who Doesn't and What That Means To The Nation, generated such an enthusiastic response that we decided to offer this contest as an annual option. According to contest rules, students were to include in their papers examples of five responsible acts and three irresponsible acts we were trying to accentuate the positive. That first contest resulted in three feedback-books. The first book, The White Hats, featured the responsible acts. Numerous students offered more than their quota of irresponsible acts, many in the form of outrageous lawsuits which are the primary subject of the second book: Responsibility: Who Has It and Who Doesn't and What That Means To The Nation. Concealed among all the required examples was the subject of the third book titled, Doesn't Any One Care About The Children?. It is our plea to you in response to the cry we heard from over a thousand teenagers. Our readers were at times overwhelmed by the anguish, despair, rage and hopelessness found in many of the opinions and stories embedded in those essays. In 1995 the Foundation had students poll their communities and question politicians, members of the local media, attorneys and others for their opinions regarding social needs as determined by the results of those polls. Solutions for "local governments struggling with limited resources" were judged by a dozen governors, and a small group consisting of U.S. senators, congressmen and big city mayors. The National High School Essay Contest Comes to an End

vii

For twenty years HSF offered recognition and incentives to every high school submitting at least ten essays covering a specified topic involving public policy and the role of government. Students have studied and written about social security, term limits for the United States Congress, government's role in child-care, government's role in health care, the media's role in choosing our candidates for national office, responsibility and even encouraged young people to work with local government to find alternatives to old ways of servicing citizen needs. Many students, and especially teachers, put an enormous amount of work into our programs. Students were given reading assignments and asked to answer twenty questions before they began their essays. Submittals were judged on how well the topic was covered and evidence of serious thinking, rather than on writing skill. In the fall excerpts were published in a book and distributed back to the schools as well as to members of Congress and to others interested in public policy. This allowed students to see how their peers across the country handled the subject matter. We launched www.singerfoundation.org in the fall of 1994. As more and more schools gained Internet access they were able to receive and transfer materials which we could put directly on our web site. Essays sent in digital form via email freed us from having to recruit volunteers who used the keyboard to input the work of students that used to arrive by mail as hard copy. In 2001 we began putting entire essays online, delaying publication of books like the one you are reading. At the end of 2006 we decided to resume publishing the students work in hard copy and to phase out the Foundations essay contest era. On our web site www.singerfoudation.org you will find the complete text of every HSF book published since 1990, often including the rules and required reading for the particular contest. You may browse, print the entire book or request a hard copy from the Foundation by using the contact information provided. We certainly have not lost interest in the goals of the HSF national essay contests. We are particularly proud of our attempt to encourage

viii

students to gather facts and think logically. The Harry Singer Foundation continues to share the goal of those who teach students how to think, not what to think. To that end we have posted links to some of, what we consider to be, the best online essay contests offered by other organizations. 2008 Begins a New Era Current Foundation programs continue to seek and encourage the exchange of ideas. We took two years to renovate our web site which hosts the Foundations history. Twenty years worth of students research and opinions may now be accessed by topic (Teens Speak Out) or by clicking on a state in the Archive forum and finding student ideas by school, teacher or participant. We have presented this information in a way that we believe visitors to our web site will find useful. You will also find on our web site new projects such as Kids 4 Kids and Transition to Teaching (T2T) which were mentioned earlier. Kids 4 Kids is expanding under the expert guidance of our Champion, Steve Platt and is now a full fledged program. While the science and math portion of T2T is in good hands, HSF is working to place volunteer mentors in subjects that are not on the States agenda. With the help of future Champions we expect the program to be picked up by states other than California. We are looking for Champions to contact engineering companies and societies, local artists, athletes and alumni associations to find members who are willing to donate time and energy to teach what they love including music, art and athletics, subjects that dont necessarily have to be taught in a classroom. The Foundation wants to join with the numerous other groups and individuals who are trying to bring this uncovered talent into the school system as mentors, teacher-aids and accredited teachers. We already have a program of accreditation that can be completed with only one day a month class attendance for 12 months. The Philanthropy Project is a collaboration between the Harry Singer Foundation and the Templeton Foundation. It is a national, multimedia public service campaign aimed at the general public,

ix

legislators, opinion leaders and the media. By using film and television to tell compelling stories about the good works, conducted by mostly small and unrecognized charitable foundations, the Philanthropy Project seeks to introduce philanthropy to young people and to promote the spirit of philanthropy in communities across the country. Media Watch is a revision of an inspirational program for students initiated by the Harry Singer Foundation in 1994. The goal is to uncover good news in communities, feed it to local media outlets and monitor publication. Over the life of the project, the good news should increase in relation to the bad news, with both kinds being carefully documented. Another Way is the culmination of over twenty years of Foundation experience. We know most adults underestimate the capabilities of young people and their idealism, energy and eagerness to be productive members of their communities. Another Way gives young people an opportunity to prove their competence. Problem Solvers is a pilot project geared towards college and high school campuses. Students debate local and national issues using media (radio, TV, newspapers). Not only do the students learn, but their nonpartisan information would be a boon to the many in our society that find that regulations and even laws have been passed without their knowledge and opportunity to contribute to the discussion or dissent.
The goal of the goal of the Human Nature project is not modest. The goal is to improve the chances that man will discover how to live with his kind in peace and tolerance, creating a free, stable environment. Once he figures out the necessary rules of conduct, the next step would be to figure out how to enforce these rules while preserving maximum individual and group freedom of thought and action.

We invite you to take advantage of opportunities to participate in, or better yet, to Champion these pilot programs by visiting our newly renovated web site at www.singerfoundation.org.

Contents

About the Harry Singer Foundation Contents Introduction Excerpts from 2004 Essays Instructions for Participants Four Complete Essays Required Reading Questions Re: Required Reading A Sampling of Answers to Questions
Participants

i 1 3 5 24 25 35 65 67 91

Introduction
As I went through the 2004 essays, choosing excerpts to tell a story, I was impressed by the intensity of the writing and could imagine the passionate discussions that preceded the written word. The material presented in this book was written in 2003-2004 and much has happened since then. The views expressed here have surely evolved as the situation in Iraq continued and the young authors matured. On the other hand, many of the views expressed by these, then high school students, I hear expressed by adults today; often not as thoughtfully or eloquently. In fact some of the students I believe were prescient. In June, 2008, I heard a radio talk show host decry the education at one of Californias State colleges. He expressed dismay that from all evidence only one point of view was taught and digested by the students. The host was nostalgic for the days when education meant exposure to discussion of a variety of ideas. The Harry Singer Foundation prides itself on its insistence that at least two sides of every issue be presented to the teen participants in our essay contests. Before they begin writing they are required to read varying views on the subject. The students then engage in research to discover and understand the pros and cons of each side and are ask to explain these contradictions in their submittals. Only after that is accomplished and the essayists have absorbed this new information are they expected to analyze, discuss and come to their own unique conclusions which can now be backed up with facts. Since our inception in 1987 our goal has been not to teach students what to think, but how to think. Analysis always starts with skeptical research and the comparison of antagonistic opinions. We think you will be encouraged by the results of the students research and analysis of the subject and perhaps hold the youth of America in higher esteem after reading the compiled excerpts presented here. Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan, Co-Founder and Director The Harry Singer Foundation Carmel, CA October 17, 2008

Preemption or Prevention?
How Have Governments Prevented War In The Past and What Should Be Their Approach In The Future?
Preemption vs. Prevention Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself; prevention is believing that another country may possibly attack, or may desire to attack. (Senator Feingold, 2002). To me, it is the difference between knowing and assuming. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Mandy refines the distinction by emphasizing the degree of information: Many times preemption and prevention are used interchangeably. Preemption is knowing [someone] is planning to attack you and not waiting till after a strike to protect yourself. In this case there is usually much evidence. On the other side, prevention is thinking that somebody may possibly attack you at some time, and justifying the immediate use of force on those reasons. It is the difference between having information that there is a planned attack and not having that information or evidence. Both of these have been used in order to try to prevent war [in the past]. Mandy Green, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Kimberly suggests preemption is a non-traditional form of self defense: In an address made to the citizens of the United States of America during the Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy said that We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security. In this statement, President Kennedy was confronting the issue of preemption, which is the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future. This doctrine puts a different spin on the traditional concept of self defense. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Ann Marie has a personal reason to prefer preemption over prevention: Prevention is when you do not take action right away and you wait. By using prevention we are risking the lives of fellow Americans. Prevention

isnt the way to go. If the government uses prevention then it might be too late to take action. We will be goners. To me, preemption is the way to go. I have a father and a brother in the military. Through this experience with Operation Iraqi Freedom I have learned that when you have informationof a possible attack, you need to attack them first. Ann Marie Pepper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Kyla, below, seems to be going around in circles: Such a doctrine does not allow any nation to develop a weapon system in its own land or in the land of another for defense or offense. If America decides that the developing nation is a threat to us or that at some time in the future it may threaten us, we can use preemption. The use of preemption in such cases presents the question of whether it is okay to use force against these nations when they may actually mean no harm to us. Should we bomb them or send troops to their countries and kill them when we really dont have to? If there is no evidence suggesting an attack on us at the present time, why should we worry about it? The reason we should worry about it is because they might not be doing any harm to us now, but in the future they might do more harm if we dont stop them. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden ,Tennessee Kimberly justifies the Preemption Doctrine A main benefit of the doctrine of preemption is that innocent lives are not lost because we waited for the enemy to attack us first. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, took the lives of thousands of innocent, unsuspecting American citizens. We knew that Osama bin Laden and the terrorist group al-Qaeda posed a potential threat to the security of the United States and had taken action against us in the past. However, if we had enacted a doctrine of preemption, we might have been able to stop the plane hijackings and destruction of part of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Personally, I believe that a preemptive strike can have positive effects when carried out correctly. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Kimberly goes on to say the Preemption Doctrine is essential: The Preemption Doctrine is an essential part of the fight against terrorism and the safety of our nation as a whole. With the ever-increasing production of weapons of mass destruction and the increasing probability of a terrorist organization acquiring them, the United States must do everything within its power to prevent a strike against our homeland. Preemption is the most effective and efficient means of defense. In todays world of nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs,

countriesmust [distinguish], not only friend from enemy, but also the capability of the enemys weapons. A nuclear attack on an enemy can be carried out without any warning and could decimate all life in [any] region. [It is unlikely] that a nuclear attack could be stopped once begun. That is why [attacks] must be prevented before they erupt into a full scale, horrifying, nuclear war. The major [threat is from] rogue terrorists who believe in only one thing; blowing up the United States. So, if a nuclear attack can not be averted through diplomacy and cannot be stopped once begun, that leaves a preemptive strike as the only alternative. This [is a valid] alternative because once diplomacy fails, the United States must act to ensure the safety of the homeland. Overall, I believe that when executed correctly, preemption is the most effective defense." Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Kyla, below, makes a clear case for preemption: The Preemption Doctrine states that there must be a current and credible risk to our security, and there must be a growing trend of dangerous behavior to be considered a threat upon which we should act. It is our right to prevent a tragedy once the above two are linked. For example, [assuming we had] more than ample evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the capability to create more, the will to use them, and the connections to groups who have the desire to use them, we should not wait around for them to use thee resources. [In] this example, Iraq [would have been] a credible and current threat qualifying for preemption. President Bush [made such an assumption and] used this preemption doctrine by sending U. S. troops to Iraq to help maintain a secure government before something worse than the tragedy of September 11th could take place. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Katlin also seems secure in her belief in favor of preemption: If all countries adopt a policy of preemption we would be better off. Some might say that policy would cause worldwide war and destruction. I dont think it will. With todays technology and [expertise], countries will be afraid to make threats or plan to attack each other because they wouldnt want the repercussion of an attack. Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Michael spent a long time developing his analysis of the issue: According to United States intelligence, the Iraqi regime was closely tied with terrorist groups. [We also believed] there [was] evidence that Iraq

was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction [and so] wedetermined that Iraq posed a major threat [to] our security. The first option was to look the other way and hope that things fix themselves. The second option was to take preemptive action. Both options have their consequences, but which set of consequences is more favorable than the other? First lets take a good look at both options, beginning with taking no action at all. There are three significant advantages in taking no action at all. First is satisfying the international community. Many nations believe that the United States had no business invading Iraq. Through dormancy, we [would have appeasedthese nations. The second advantage is the preservation of the United States image. If a war broke out, the United States [would not have started it]. The third advantage involves money. By taking no action, we would not have to pay the high military costs. By taking no action in Iraq, there are also three significant disadvantages. First, we are only delaying warfare. Somewhere down the line we might be attacked and forced to go to war against a more powerful Iraq. Secondly, enemies across the world would get the message that they can attack the United States and get away with it. The third disadvantage is that we would have left a tyrant in charge to run [the Iraqi] people into the ground. Taking preemptive action, has several advantages [over doing nothing]. First the world will benefit from a victory [over] terror. Secondly, we would obtain justice for the victims and families affected by the events of September 11. Third, we would save many innocent lives by preventing future enemy strikes. Fourth, we would free the Iraqi people from their ruthless dictator, Sadam Hussein. The major disadvantage in taking preemptive action unfortunately includes the loss of life. It is almost certain that a military operation will result in the loss of valiant soldiers. Also, we must take into accountthe possibility for lost civilian lives. Another disadvantage is money. An operation such as the one in Iraq can cost billions of dollars. Michael even looks to history for guidance in his analysis: Now taking a look from a historical standpoint, events such as Pearl Harbor could have been avoided if we had engaged in preemption. We sat in our corner of the world and watched Hitler strengthen Nazi Germany, establish the Axis powers, begin European conquest, slaughtering Jews and other minorities. The same can be said about September 11, 2001. The previous administration had Osama Bin Ladens head given to them on a platter in 1993. Instead of taking advantage of the situation they opted to take no action and the Saudi Arabian government let Bin Laden run free. Eight years later, Bin Ladens group, al-Quaeda, launched the

largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941. He draws a logical conclusion below, admitting more work remains: In light of the consequential and historical evidencethe choice is obvious. Approval of the preemptive doctrine is necessary to overcome the challenges that Iraq brings to the international table. Indeed military operations and reconstruction is a challenge, but if planned properly, we can escape with a minimum amount of negative consequences. In doing so, Iraq becomes a successful, free state in which democracy rules. This is exactly what we chose to do. In March of 2003, the United States launched one of the most impressive military operations in history. Coalition troops rocketed through the country and took the capital city, Baghdad, in a matter of days. As a result, the Iraqi people were freed and [we thought] the world was rid of another terrorism cell. [But] military occupation of the country did not mean the end of the operation. Pockets of resistance could still be found and [an elected] government was not yet in place. More than a year after the beginning of the operation, we were still prepping Iraq for independence. On June 30, 2004, we handed the power over to the new Iraqi government [and that has not gone as well as expected.] [However], I believe that the United States chose wisely in engaging in preemption and that this option [will] yield the least amount of negative consequences short and long term. I believe that a preemptive doctrinemust be refined to the point of near flawlessness [and adopted permanently in order to] provide for a more secure and prosperous nation for future generations to enjoy. Michael Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

American Arrogance?
Okay for the United States but only the United States? Preemptive measures might also start wars. Senator Feingold said It may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their own preemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager to see a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or by China or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerous in the hands of anybody else?. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Twenty-one years ago, Israel exercised preemptive action when its planes bombed Iraq's nuclear research facility. Israel justified its action by claiming Iraq was about to produce nuclear weapons and that

threatened Israel. But the United Nations, including the US, strongly condemned Israel. Nowthe United States [is] using the September 11th attack to rationalize its new doctrine. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee If the United States must act alone in these matters, then so be it. We will continue to lead the world into the future with the rest of the world following in our path. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Use preemption because we canbecause we are so powerful? The first reason that I support the doctrine of preemption is because it will warn other countries not to interfere with us. The Monroe Doctrine told European nations to stay out of our business, and having a doctrine of preemption will do the same thing. Another reason that I support the doctrine of preemption is because we are capable of doing so. Our nation is so powerful in so many diverse areas. It would be crazy to sit back and let another country attack us. The third reason I support a doctrine of preemption is because we are a caring nation. If we see another country suffering we are going to step up and do whats right-no matter what any other country says. Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Use preemption to get our point across? Although governments have not always been successful in preventing war, I dont think that any country wants to be involved in war. I think that our country should adopt a policy of preemption and stand by it. If we know that a country is going to attack us, there is no point in waiting to attack them. If we are successful, we will have gotten our point across and there will be no more aggression. Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee I believe that the preemption doctrine is the best approach to solving the nations everyday problems. Using the preemptive approach, we can maintain our high standing as a dominant country and prevent any attacks that may occur in the future. I think it is okay to kill a few men to get our point across rather that have thousands of our men killed. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

10

Samantha, below, is not clear if our attack on Iraq was preventive or preemptive, but she definitely believes it may have done us more harm than good and warns us about being a pushy nation: Iraq was not another powerful nation. The threat to America was not immediate. The attack on Iraq was not one that was preemptive to war. Instead it was an attempt to limit the amount of bloodshed that might come some time in the distant future. It was a form of prevention. The affects: terrorist strikes within the country, waning international trust, and another blow to an institution that is key to forming a better global community. For the people of Iraq life may become better than it was under Saddam but for this possibility the war cannot be justified. Animosity towards America has not decreased, so while [one] threat is gone another is growing. Preemptive strikes, such as the one in Iraq, are not the way to stabilize the world. Perhaps action [should have] been taken, but not then and not with a snub to the rest of the world. Powerful countries influence the rest of the world whether they mean to or not. If America engages in preemptive strikes, then other countries may feel that they are justified in doing so as well. How could America ask Israel to try negotiations with the Palestinians? Our own preemptive strikes could strengthen the idea that we are a pushy nation that cannot be trusted. It would reinforce in their minds that we are a threat to their ways of life and one that needs to be dealt with as soon as possible, because we may strike at any time. Preemptive strikes can also hurt the economy. People may be less willing to trade or invest, and without other nations supporting the preemptive strike the financial burden can drain our nation. Education and social security are among other things that may end up being sacrificed for the cause. The country may be safe from outside threats, but the country would still suffer domestically if these important needs are not met. Then there is also safety at home in our own country to think about. We focus our attention overseas instead of fixing the violence at home. Senator Bryd, for example, spoke of the sniper shootings. The threats and problems that are here in front of us are left unattended as we focus on the less immediate problems abroad. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Amanda calls it as she sees it: Have we all become hypocrites? We demand that the entire world see the superiority of our ways, yet we cannot even honor [our] values. Are we willing to bomb a country and kill its people even though they have not harmed us? Have we painted all of our neighbors as villains in this 21st century McCarthyism? Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

11

Opposition to the Preemption Doctrine

Kimberly believes the Preemption Doctrine provides too much power to the executive branch of government: The opposition to the Preemption Doctrine suggests that it provides the President with too much power. Who is to decide what is too much power and what is not? The Constitution established that it was the job of the Supreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives to check the powers of the executive branch of government. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Amanda agrees and puts the burden on American citizens: Allowing our President to strike others without seeking counsel and approval from Congress is a betrayal to our republic and those who fought so gallantly to free our ancestors from tyranny. Have we so soon forgotten the importance of having a say in our governments actions, and our own destinies? Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California Megan is more than skeptical when it comes to using preemption: Some people say that a preemptive war would be unjust. This country will defend [itself] fiercely if attacked, but [it] should not go looking for a fight by attacking first. [Besides,] other nations might be encouraged to do the same; strike other countries they feel threatened by. That would not be a good situation. If the world is not very peaceful now, just think what it would be like in that circumstance. A preemptive strike would cost [an] estimated100 or 200 billion dollars! That enormous amount of money would affect our country greatly, [and] in a negative way. That money could go to fund something more important, such as education, or medical research. After September 11, 2001, we improved our security but preemptive strikes could [provoke] more threats and terrorist attacks. Personally I do not favor the preemption doctrine. I don't feelit will benefit our country if weseek out, and purposely attack another country that [seems] threatening. Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Kyla shares her research and tells us what some people think about the Doctrine of Preemption: Some [people] think that preemption is a blue print for continued world domination by the military. They also think that it is a foolhardy plan that will take this nation into places it should not go. It will make enemies of

12

this nation where there should be friends and it will [turn] friends into enemies. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Jon and Heather, although from different parts of the country, share their own similar thoughts about the drastic effect the Preemption Doctrine would have on the United States: Although I agreesome strong points can be made for preemptive strikes, I just cant see the pros outweighing the cons in this ongoing debate. I am for protecting the people of this country, but no one needs to diebecause of a mere suspicion that some country might have weapons of mass destruction and might be planning to use them [to attack us.] Whos to say that a country doesnt own weapons of mass destruction simply for defensive reasons? Im pretty sure that America owns weapons of mass destruction, but I dont see eastern countries marching into the United Statesbecause we might use them to attack others. The only thing that could come out of [a preemptive] strike is war. Countries will not simply stand back and lettheir people die and not do anything about it. Preemptive strikes would [devastate both sides.] Jon Davies, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Having weapons of mass destruction and actually attacking someone are two completely different things. America has weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that we are about to attack some other country? Our government is not perfect, but I believe that America has done a great job of securing our safety and that preemptive efforts should not be taken.I believe that preemptive measures would damage our government and our national values What would happen to our country? The world, not just the United States, as we know it would be drastically affected by this new doctrine. I believe that we should continue the same approach with other nations in the future and interfere with other countries only when [absolutely] necessary. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Amanda acts as our conscience once again: Preemptive strikes will [diminish] Americas standing [in the world]. We would have proven ourselves to be hypocrites by saying we intend to bring democracy and all of its laurels to Iraq by bombing them. Have they posed a certifiable threat to our country? When we acted offensively, we ourselves became the tyrants, the aggressors - dictators of the world.

13

Just because the world is not a democracy does not mean we can allow ourselves to become dictators. We must apply our [own ideals] to every action we take, including foreign policy. If we truly believe in our Constitution, then we must accept it as the rights of all men, not just American citizens. That means that in attacking Iraq, and in the acceptance of the Preemption Doctrine, we have betrayed our [American ideals]. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

Preemption Dilemmas
How does anyone KNOW for certain? The [trouble with] the doctrine of preemption is that the government must justify military action based on conjectures and suppositions. When a preemptive strike is launched, the target has yet toact against the attacking nation. Therefore, there is little or no concrete proof that something would have actually happened if the strike had not been launched. The events that occurred in Iraq, while trying to prove that Saddam Hussein was harboring or building weapons of mass destruction, have shown how difficult it is to prove that an enemy nation was plotting against us before [we] attacked. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee The reliability of information I can see where preemptive efforts are worth considering. By taking preemptive measures, terrorism may decrease. We might never have to suffer through another September 11 ever again. This would be a blessing. America would no longer be in constant fear of another terrorist attack. However, what if those preemptive efforts are wrong? What if there was some misleading information? We would be at war with a country for no reason. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee What we cant know without the benefit of hindsight How far is too far when we are protecting our national interests? Should we wait for other countries approvalor go it alone and fight for what we [believe] is right? Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Should our governments military use preemption or prevention? Would it be a wiser choice for the United States to protect our country on probable cause, or should we just be prepared for the worst? ...Isnt it

14

possible to [do both]? There is not any wrong answer. Preemption and prevention are both tactics to keep America [safe]. Kari Rudolph, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Ethical Considerations
Is it okay to kill a person? As for the ethical question, Is it ever ok to kill?, I think it heavily depends on the circumstance. Killing for [self-defense and defending ones country] is justifiable. Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Opposition to the Preemption doctrine [is] rooted in ethical considerations [as well as concerns about the growth] of government power. Is it ever ok to kill?, This ancient question should be reworded Is it ok to take the lives of few to save millions? because this is what our world has come to today. With the possession of weapons of mass destruction, rogue countries could kill millions in an instant, whereas a preemptive strike might take the lives of 1000 terrorists or affiliated killers. The answer to this question is clear; in the society that we live in today, ridding the world of a few terrorists is the price to pay for saving the lives of millions of innocent civilians whose lives could be snuffed out in an instant by a nuclear attack. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania When you discuss taking any kind of military action, you must take ethics into consideration. First of all, you must ask, Is it okay to kill a person? If you believe in the teachings of the Bible, this question would most likely be answered with a resounding no. However, when considered from a military stance, your only options are usually kill or be killed. Is it worth the risk of losing the lives of no telling how many innocent civilians [by attacking a suspected] enemy nation that has not yet acted against us? Should we wait for them to fire before we load our guns? It seems that we would be compelled to act against the enemy before they attacked in order to prevent the loss of our own people. Then again, one must consider the innocent civilians who reside in the enemys nation. Like the innocent civilians in Afghanistan, they most likely have little association with the terrorists or government that is threatening [us]. A preemptive strike might cost the lives of some of these people. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

15

The temptation to assume the role of a super-hero Preemptive action is the 21st century response to a slew of tough lessons learned throughout the 20th century. The 20th Century was full of difficult lessons. It seemed that time after time we stood paralyzed as millions died. So often we found ourselves apologizing and swearing it would never happen again. After witnessing devastation of Nazi terror and later horrors in the Balkans, Iraq, Somalia, and Rwanda, it was concluded that somehow these injustices must be prevented. The preemptive doctrine justifies intervention and allows us to stop these atrocities before they begin. [With it] we are able to stop genocides before they start, topple dictators before they come to power, and negotiate civil disputes before they turn into all out war. Action can be taken against an aggressor like Saddam Hussein before he [can cause more] devastation. We can show the world that we have accepted our place as [the #1] world power, and that were prepared to be held accountable for the world, and for humankind, and that were prepared to act to protect what we believe is right when no one else will. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California But Amanda is aware of the pitfalls and points them out for the rest of us: However, this action comes, as all things do, at a high price. Dare we go back on our own ideals? Would we convict a criminal before a crime hasbeen committed? It seems preemptive action is just that. Not only is the expanded Preemption Doctrine allowing us to attack another country, but it is allowing us to attack without provocation, and secondly, it is allowing a single person (the President) to decide whether or not this is a course of action we must pursue. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California Amanda brings ethics into the equation again and warns us not to betray the very values that make the United States worth defending: So in [using the Preemption Doctrine] we betray [our core] values. Justice, liberty, empowerment of the people, democracyall of these values would vanish. Innocent until proven guilty, will be replaced with Threaten us and die. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

The past is used as an argument in favor of Preemption

Doing nothing doesnt work: Many of our countrys leaders have been in favor of preemptive action. During the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy showed his

16

support by telling Americans that standing back and doing nothing would be the greatest danger of all. Three months prior to the attacks on Pearl Harbor Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Nazis that the United States would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. More recently President Bill Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, which was an intense 70-hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign he guaranteed Americans that we would remain a strong military presence in the area and would remain ready to use it if Saddam tried to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had been a constant fear in the minds of many AmericansHussein [once had] biological and chemical weapons. President Bush realized the immediate need to [make certain] those weapons of mass destruction [would not be used again]. Franklin Roosevelt once asked our country to think about something. If you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. These words should give us much to think about. If the United States government knows of someone that is a threat to this country and its people I believe action should be taken. We must use history to our advantage and learn from it. President Kennedy was correct when he told Americans that the 1930s and Hitler should be a good lesson, [proving] that things that go unchecked or are not challenged can only lead to worse things such as war. While Presidents such as Kennedy, Roosevelt, and Clinton did push preemption, for the most part this country tended to be patient and practiced restraint. I believe that when our safety is on the line, action must be taken. Krista Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee In 2004 Derrek thought we were right to take preemptive action but also had the foresight to realize that there would be a time to give up. I think he might be among the majority that favored withdrawal in 2007- 2008 and a sharing of the burden of peacekeeping in Iraq. With all of the facts on hand, it is easy to see what option should have been chosen. By engaging in preemptive action, the United States [hoped to] transform Iraq into a democracy that would flourish and prosper in the future. Do we not believe that expanding democracy, promoting strong economies, and creating peace throughout the world is a major part of the American philosophy? ...If America had not taken preemptive action, [there could have been] dire consequences... Iraq [could have] built up an army that could [have] ended the lives of many more Americans. Although the United States was right in beginning the war against terror in Iraq, [there will be a] time to

17

give upand let the United Nations do [its] job Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Below, Kimberly and Stephen remind us that preemption has been employed many times before the invasion of Iraq Preemption has been employed more than once throughout the history of the United States. Some instances where a preemptive strike was made by the United States military are the Cuban missile crisis, the cruise missile strikes against Afghanistan, Sudan, and Kosovo, and, most recently, Operation Enduring Freedom. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee There have been many times throughout U.S. history when a preemptive action was taken as a defense to a possible enemy attack. An early example took place in 1962 when John F. Kennedy was President. J.F.K.s presidency was a time of great terror and strain due to the iron curtain that had engulfed much of Europe. When the Soviets moved into Cuba and installed nuclear warheads pointing toward the United States shores, a preemptive action was taken in the form of a blockade. Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba to show that America would not tolerate this type of threat and also to hopefully force [the Soviets] to peacefully retreat. His blockade did in fact work, and after many months the Soviets finally pulled out of Cuba and returned to Europe without a missile being fired by either side. This is a classic example of a preemptive action that ended an otherwise hopeless situation. Many more successful preemptive strikes were completed during the 1980s during Ronald Reagans terms in office. The first of these took place in 1983 and dealt with the invasion of Grenada, a country that was causing continual problems for the U.S. President Reagan also ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya in 1986 in a futile attempt to end terrorism by starting at the root. In these two cases, the offending country showed clear plans to attack the United States, thus rendering them textbook preemptive cases. To prevent these planned attacks, the U.S. immediately attacked these two nations, swiftly eliminating any threat that they could pose to the U.S. When looking back through history, there is one specific tragic event that I believe could have been easily avoided through a preemptive strike. This horrible event was Pearl Harbor and the enemy was the Japanese. The United States previously knew of the Japanese alliance with the axis powers and also knew of their air capabilities. There is even now talk of intelligence knowing of a possible attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese well before the event. If the United States had evaluated the

18

evidence, they would have found that this warranted a preemptive strike on Japan that could have taken shape in a number of ways. This would have surely changed the course of history and saved thousands of lives in the process. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Kyla agrees with Stephen that the Prevention Doctrine paved the way for Pearl Harbor: The other use of military force that is less straight forward is the preventative approach. This is believing that another country may possibly attack, then justifying the use of force on those grounds. An example where the United States used the preventative approach is when the United States decided to wait until we had sufficient information about the Japanese to take action. Three months later, under the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Hawaiian Islands were bombed severely in what was known as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many men, women, and children were killedThis sudden strike against the U.S. was the result of not using the preemption doctrine. Many lives could have been spared if we had taken action to prevent the hostility that happened on December 7th. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee However Heather, below, also refers to Pearl Harbor but disagrees with Stephen and Kyla. She cannot justify preemption and urges our government to continue using preventive measures: The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was also another devastating day in American History. Japanese Airliners bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and marked the beginning of World War II. Threats were apparent before the onset of the attack. However, did that give us the right to send military aircrafts to Japan and [start] bombing them? Instead of taking preemptive measures, I believe that our government should take more preventive measures. When another country makes a threat to attack, be prepared for that attack. Bombing another country and killing thousands of innocent people because of a threat will only make matters worse. Besides, it is wrong to kill. I believe in defense, but I think that it should be put into action only when necessary. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee In hindsight preemption often looks like a good idea: Upon looking back in history, preemption seems to be a good idea. If European countries had practiced preemption during Hitlers reign, World War II may have been avoided. [Instead] the axis powers were allowed to

19

grow and expand until the point of no return. What followed was the greatest catastrophe in world history: World War II. It is also possible that the events of September 11 could have been avoided if America had practiced preemption. We had Osama Bin Laden in 1993, but we let him run free from Saudi Arabia. If action would have been taken then, thousands of American lives could have been potentially saved, but because we did not heed the signs that were shown to us, the greatest tragedy on American soil took place. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Solutions
Heather sticks to her beliefs and sees prevention as the preferred solution for America: I think that we should expand our preventive measures and be ready for an attack at all times. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee A solution for a more specific solution is the result of Megans research: In [a speech] Prime Minister Tony Blair commented [that] there should be a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition. This is so that the refugees are given shelter, food, and help during the winter months. Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Kyla wants the United States to use its power sparingly and is critical of the policy executed by President Bush: The wise course of action for a powerful nation is to use its power sparingly, in measured amounts and use it as a last result. The Bush Doctrine of Preemption goes beyond the definition it has set and beyond the generally accepted standard for nations. This Administration has broadened the meaning Preemption to include preventive war where force may be used without any indication that an imminent attack is to occur to ensure that a serious threat to the United States does not gather or grow over time. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Lindsey advocates compromise: I believe that war could be replaced with compromise. War always begins over some little dispute and gradually grows larger and larger. It is in the hands of our leaders. If they all agreed to something, we would save the

20

lives of millions of men and women soldiers not to mention the innocent victims that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm sure that the compromise wouldn't make either side overjoyed but would war actually be any better? Would they get more satisfaction out of killing millions that have nothing to do with the dispute in the first place, but who are victims of their leaders ignorance and who are still willing to fight for their country? I think an attack on a country is like two little boys fighting in the schoolyard. They are both fighting because of their pride and unwilling to reach a settlement before the [situation rages out of control]. I know that war is a complicated thing and that I do not fully understand all of the aspects. I was only 16 when the planes hit the twin towers. I could not understand why anyone would be so hateful as to kill innocent people to make a point. I think that people just let the hatred get the best of them when it comes to war. I know that war will continue throughout time and so will hate but maybe one day compromise will come into the picture also. Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Samantha looks to the United Nations: We need to shed the ancient way in which countries have dealt with one another.The United Nations is one of the best tools for modernizing the world. It isnot a perfect institution, but it is still young in the scheme of things. Once countries can see its worth and stop using it as an instrument to pursue their own selfish needs, great things can be accomplished. The best way to prevent war is by engaging in peace talks. The U.N. creates a neutral setting for these discussions and can provide pressure from other countries to settle a conflict peacefullyand stick to resolutions. War is a last resort. Many times in our world's history nations made promises to work for peace. They did so in the Quadruple Alliance, the League of Nations, and the United Nations whose charter opens with We the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind... What is it going to take to make us stick with it? What horrors do we have to endure before it hits us that the struggle for peace, as hard and trying as it may be, is by far the most able thing to carry mankind through the ages? Only by working together will we be able to preserve mankind. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Katlin offers several solutions: a Good Neighbor policy, trade sanctions, renewal of the mutually assured destruction doctrine used effectively during the Cold War, helping poorer nations improve their

21

standard of living and support of world peace keeping organizations: Teddy Roosevelt turned the Monroe Doctrine into a Good Neighbor Policy in order to try and ease tensions that existed around the world during his presidency. Governments have also prevented wars by implementing trade sanctions on other countries. Instead of inflicting physical damage and loss of life, a country can hurt the economy of another country until they change their ways. Mutual assured destruction was [used] during the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union both knew that they had the capability to destroy each other. It was just an issue of who was going to attack first. The nations knew that if they attacked, the other would immediately strike back. This threat prevented the two countries from engaging in conflict. If the people of a country are unhappy they are more likely to press for war in orderto gain resources and land to [improve] theirstandard of living. The United Nations, an inter-governmental organization, and NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, are just two examples of peace keeping organizations. Countries hesitate to go to war without their approval. These organizations work to keep peace and promote compromise and agree to war only if it is the last resort. Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee In the end Katlin favors a world police force. The United Nations has that role, but we have seen its record for peace keeping is dismal: In order to prevent war between two or more countries, I think a new program should be founded. We should establish a world police. As of right now, the United States is pretty much filling that position, and its not fair. Our men and women in the armed forces are risking their lives, and our money is being used to rebuild Iraq. There should be a worldwide organization with representatives from each country that decides when action should be taken against a country. The police force could be made up of volunteers from all nations. An attack would be imminent if and only if every other form of negotiation had failed. I think that an organization such as this would greatly help the prevention of war in the future. It would also take away the burden of other countries having to act on their own at their own risk. ..I think the formation of a world police force would help to prevent war in the future. All countries will unite together and share the cost, liability, exposure, and responsibility that would come with an organization of that measure. Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

22

Mandys solution is in a different direction: A major cause of war is collective social stress. India could prevent war and end conflict by reducing social stress through the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program. [We all] could learn from Mozambique's example of 1992. Mostly you can tell a governments or countrys social and political standards based on their humanitarian relief, their willingness to comply with other countries agreements and level of concern for peace. Mandy Green, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee But Krista has the final say with her emphasis on action: September 11th, Pearl Harbor, and other events have left this country feeling somewhat vulnerable. Whatever vulnerability we feel, we must not let it show. We must remain the strong world power we are. Taking preemptive action, however, will have consequences. We must be prepared. Certain questions arise when it comes to preemption.... When it comes to cost I dont think it could ever be too high when it comes to our own safety. This nations safety is the governments responsibility. ,,, Should we just sit back and wait for another attack? Would that justify taking action any more than the thousands of lives already lost by one attack? Action must be taken as soon as the safety of this country is at stake. We must not sit back and wait for the snake to bite. Once it has it will already be too late. Krista Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

23

Instructions for the Preemption v Prevention 2004 Harry Singer Foundation National Essay Contest
Discuss the pros and cons of the preemption doctrine and make it clear what side you personally come down on and why. Include ethical considerations (Is it ever okay to kill?) and examples from history in your discussion. Before writing your paper, please complete the required reading and answer the questions that must be submitted with your essay.

24

Four Complete Essays

Prevention or Preemption
By Andrew Lyon Somerset Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania
One of the most important principles on which our country was founded is the desire to avoid war at all cost and only take military action when we have been attacked. Indeed our first president George Washington urged the nation to avoid war altogether for many years until the country had been established. However, unfortunate as it may be, recent events such as the rise of terrorism and especially the attack on the United States on 9/11/01 have forced president George W. Bush to temporarily set aside these ideals and take action to combat the evil that currently threatens peace in our world. These actions have caused the President to come under a great deal of criticism from his political adversaries both at home and abroad. Some people feel that President Bush has abandoned our countrys long standing tradition of solving conflict through diplomacy instead of military force. They feel that the problem should have been left up to the United Nations to deal with, as they have in the past, by passing resolution after resolution politely asking Saddam Hussein to stop oppressing his people and producing chemical and biological weapons. This approach was doomed to fail just as it did in the months before World War Two when the countries of Europe adopted a policy of appeasement to deal with the military advances of Adolph Hitler. That strategy proved to be a tragic mistake for the allies as Hitler continued to gain ground and invade countries until those countries that were left decided to fight back. This example proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that political despots such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to remain in power indefinitely. That is why the United States invasion of Iraq and removal of Saddam from power was not only justified, it was necessary. This is not to say that The United States should by any means abandon diplomacy altogether. Indeed many conflicts throughout our nations history have been resolved without resorting to military action. Perhaps

25

the greatest example of our nations tradition of peaceful conflict resolution was the Cold War and subsequent collapse of Communism. This series of events was a testament to Americas ability to endure tough challenges by peaceful means. However, in this new millennium America is faced with a new enemy.This enemy is terrorism. It is unlike any foe we have faced before. It does not reside in any specific location. It does not have a certain appearance or mode of operation. In fact [it] can take the form of anyone, anywhere. This enemy came to the forefront of American interest when terrorists hijacked four passenger planes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in nearby Shanksville Pennsylvania. This attack on American soil prompted immediate and decisive action on the part of America. The United States government initiated a far reaching campaign to seek out those who committed the atrocious actsand stop the efforts of terrorist throughout the world . The recent military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and other state sponsors of terrorism serve to send a strong message to the world. Anyone who supports and does not actively condemn terrorism of any kind will be considered dangerous enemies of the United States and forced to cease their support by any means necessary. Lawmakers and foreign Heads of State have voiced many valid concerns about the preemptive strategy utilized in the War On Terror. One of the most valid concerns is the message that is being sent to other countries. The fear is that rogue nations may attack weaker nations under the guise of stopping terrorism. Many Americans believe that these strikes fuel the already growing hatred of Americans throughout the world. Although this has been the case in some instances, manycitizens of the countries where The United States has ousted terrorist regimes are extremely grateful to be rid of their tyrannical dictators. Any action that is taken will most definitely be unpopular to some people. Whether we like it or not, America is a leader in todays world and sometimes, for the good of society, leaders have to do things that are not always popular. We might make some enemies in the process and we may have to suffer some economic consequences. But in the end America must take the lead and do what is ultimately right. Andrew Lyon, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

26

How America Saved (Or Destroyed) the World

By Lindsay Blazin Somerset Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania
Preemption has become a buzzword since the brutal attacks of September 11th. It seems as though every American has been forced to consider the morality of waging war against Iraq under the pretense of the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The issue has been fiercely debated in newspapers, television shows, and on the floor of Congress. Key questions have arisen from the countless hours of arguing: When is it okay to strike preemptively? How will policies of preemption affect America and the rest of the world? Most importantly, who can be trusted to make these decisions? America has been thrust into a position of world leadership either willingly or otherwise. Our economic plans are reflected across the world and our freedoms are coveted by citizens of more restrictive nations. Consequently, the decision we make in regards to preemptive doctrine will not be solitary and unimportant. On the contrary, the example set by America on this volatile and controversial issue will be repeated in many parts of the world. With this in mind, we must tread carefully when entering the territory of preemption; there will be no going back. There are several points made in favor of preemption. Many of these are seeded in fear. For example, many people fear another attack like 9/11 and are willing to go to great lengths to avoid another day like that one. Still others argue that had doctrines of preemption been in place in the years preceding World War II, Hitler would have been unable [to rise] to power. While these fears are completely valid, nations do not thrive under legislated paranoia. Other supporters of preemption dredge up facts and figures from years gone by hoping that history will strengthen their case. It is true that many respected Presidents believed strongly in preemptive policies, even the Democrats. Using history as a guide is perfectly acceptable and even conducive to producing educated and aware citizens. However, growing nations cannot make new policies by simply copying doctrines that worked in the past. If America operated on such a system slavery would be in tact

27

and women would still be shockingly silent. Obviously, the past is not always the greatest teacher. The drawbacks of preemption seem evident to me. From a strictly economic standpoint, preemption is expensive. To go traipsing around the world chasing after every Middle Easternerwould be seriously damaging to the already mounting government debt. Also, a serious risk is posed in this situation by what law enforcement officials would call copycats: other nations that adopt a similar doctrine of preemption at some point in the future. Imagine what the world would be like if we all thought preemptively. America would receive reports about terrorist activity in Iran and begin planning a preemptive strike against that nation. In the meantime, Iran finds out about our plans of attack and begins taking preemptive measures against [us]. And so it continues like that annoying riddle. Which did come first? Another negative side effect of preemption is the threat of world domination. Globally, Americanization is something to be significantly feared. For reasons yet unknown, many nations around the world seem to dislike, or even despise the American way of life. No matter how ridiculous it seems we cannot write off the concerns of other nations without thoughtful consideration. That would be horribly elitist and certainly not American. It would also be un-American to force our way of life on any other nation whether they could use the help or not. Certainly we would never want to impose like that. So what, then, is a nation to do? Should we sit on our hands while other countries plan our decline? Or should we attack blindly on little more than a hunch and hope our gamble wont result in disaster? The answer, obviously, lies in the middle of these two extremes. Nobody would suggest that our government ignore evidence of terrorist activity and wait for the other Husseins and Bin Ladens of the world to strike us down. Such an idea is ridiculous and completely opposed [to] the bravery and proactive attitude we Americans hold in such high esteem. What must be recognized and considered is that overzealous ideals and impatience can be just as detrimental to the United States as hesitation and inactivity. I believe that the only way a doctrine of preemption can be effectively enacted in America is through the successful collection of information by federal agencies created to do just that. Taking action when presented with reliable evidence of clear and present danger is not only acceptable to but

28

also demanded by the American people. At this point, I would suggest that we bow graciously out of Iraq and invest the money we would lose there over the next decade in more fruitful endeavors. One such endeavor would be co-sponsoring an international organization created to gather information related to the elimination of terrorism worldwide. If that organization were properly funded I believe it would prove surprisingly capable of reliably reporting terrorism to the sponsoring nations. With trustworthy information, preemptive attacks would go virtually unquestioned. Those attacks would be even more acceptable to the global community if they were supported by a number of nations, not just the United States. In conclusion, preemption cannot be carried out on a whim. Time must be taken to hash out every issue in this mightily complicated debate. Most importantly, the people of America must be given the opportunity to be heard on this critical point. My grandchildren will experience the effects of this doctrine and the farthest reaches of the globe will feel its aftershocks. As previously stated, we must tread carefully. The future of the world really does lie in our hands.

29

Prevent Preemption in Modern Society

By Levi Hahn Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania
September 11th marked a time in American and global history that has forever changed the way governments, particularly the United States government, view the policy of preemption. Many believe that the attacks of September 11th could have been prevented through means such as preemptive attacks against al-Qaeda if we had knowledge of their plans. The United States seems to believe these claims and has been working to accomplish preemption now and in the future. What is meant by preemption? Senator Russell Feingold described what he believes the difference is between preemption versus prevention in a Senate hearing on September 26, 2002. He described preemption as, knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. He then contends that, prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. According to Senator Feingold's definitions, the government of the United States has most certainly combined these two terms to create a policy of preemptive prevention. Preemption is no longer what Senator Feingold defined it as, but rather is the practice of using potential national security threats as justification to go to war. Unfortunately, Americans are widely accepting this redefinition because of the fear caused by September 11th and the promise that a new preemption doctrine will prevent future attacks of scale by terrorists. In early 2003, George W. Bush pled his case for war with Iraq to the American people, allied countries, and the United Nations. He claimed that Iraq was a security threat to America because the Iraqi government was supposedly manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and therefore posed an imminent danger to the interests of the United States. Many American citizens and allied countries embraced the President's proposed war due to his claim that Iraq was involved with terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. These citizens and nations remembered the horrors experienced on September 11, 2001 less than two years prior to Bush's proposed military operation in Iraq. These Americans agreed with the President and decided that preemptive attacks were necessary to strengthen national security. Other American citizens, the United Nations, and many usual

30

allies of the United States disagreed with George Bush's proposal, however. They claimed that there was insufficient evidence that Iraq was making weapons of mass destruction, nor were there indications that Iraq was a security threat to the United States. Ignoring these nations' opinions and pleas, George Bush and Congress allowed Operation Iraqi Freedom to take place. This preemptive attack on Iraq left the country in shambles, and many of the Iraqi citizens with no shelter, family members, or even their own lives. In addition, Saddam Hussein's government was toppled, and he was captured by US forces. Most would agree that Hussein's removal was a positive accomplishment because of his treatment of the citizens of Iraq. Unfortunately, the torture to which he subjected his citizens [was] emulated by [a few] US soldiersserving in Iraq. Furthermore, not one weapon of mass destruction has been located by allied forces in Iraq. In other words, George Bush's main justification for a preemptive attack was not justified. [It now seems] Iraq [was] destroyed for no apparent reason. Additionally, one country should not believe that it has control over other countries. Iraq and the United States are two independent nations. Therefore, they are equals in the global community. The Bush administration seems to believe that the United States has supremacy over other countries and can dictate what those other countries do. This is false. The only governing force over countries is the United Nations, which has been ignored in regard to the Iraq war. A country does have a right to defend itself if attacked by another but never should a nation engage in a preemptive attack against [another] country. The whole idea of preemption is based upon suspicion of another person or group. Imagine a scenario in which one person murdered another because he thought the person was planning to kill him first. He then justifies his actions with self-defense. Obviously, this would be deemed unacceptable by any reasonable person or court. So why should it be acceptable for a government to use the same justification? No person or group of people should ever be permitted to kill unless they are defending themselves against a party attempting to inflict harm or death upon them. Just because the two parties happen to be governments does not give either special privileges.

31

Prevention or Preemption
By Megan Sheftic La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California
Prevention or preemption is a large topic to discuss. Many ideas need to be taken into consideration when deciding to act on threats. Basic liberties are a great place to start. I dont feel that thousands of men and women should die because the President feels [it is] necessary. Yes September eleventh was a tragedy and many men women and children died for no reason, butthat should have been prevented. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights. By going to war, the President is forcing a person to give up these natural rights. How can anyones pursuit of happiness be to travel thousands of miles away from home and risk dying in the process? We need to be a country that is willing to fight for its rights and safety, but hold back in fighting when it comes to personal differences with Saddam Hussein. I understand that President George Bush Sr. didnt take care of Saddam in the nineties, but that does not mean his son had to finish him off in two thousand and four. Maybe what it all comes down to is President Bush making decisions [based] on his own judgment. He should have considered others ideas and suggestions. Iraq is a big problem. It did not have to be the [conundrum] it is now. Nearly every television station is focused on the war. Iraq is discussed constantly. In some aspects this whole ordeal has been blown way out of proportion. Dateline and Twenty Twenty [TV news programs] have a new story to air every week. It seems as if nothing else happens in this country, and to [CNN] nothing else seems as important. In my opinion many other things are just as important. Teenagers across the country are soon making a transition from home to the real world. This is supposed to be the greatest time of any high school graduates life, and its not. Moving on is completely blinded by the fact that we are at war. If President Bush concentrated the tax payers money on education and health care instead of spending billions upon billions on some blown up buildings in the desert, this country could far exceed [the nations current] expectations for the next generation.

32

Right now it is a little too late to discuss what President Bush should and should not have done. We are at war and there is no turning back. [It would have been a sign of] weaknessif we were to back out of Iraq without finishing what was started. To me, that is the one major mistake President Bush Sr. made. He should have finished off Saddam in the nineties; maybe then we would not be at war with him again. Even though it is too late to change what has been started, no one should just accept what is going on. This country is run on the power of the people. Voting is a privilege, not just a right. If more people would take advantage of this privilege, decisions would not be left up to President Bush to decide on his own. We voted him into [office] and we have to make the best of it. President Bush should want to make friends instead of enemies. We cannot go around acting as if we are bulletproof; September eleventh proved otherwise. Growing up in this nation never caused me to fear anything. I always felt as if anything were to happen it wouldnt happen here. Living ten miles from the flight ninety-three crash site caused me to change my mind. We are not as strong as we need to be. I do have to say that as a nation we recovered quickly and our true colors showed as we came together as united Americans. Whether we are attacked again or not, I feel that [we learned from the experience]. We know we have to have better means of detecting terrorist attacks. [Americans] should not live in fear. Life needs to return to [normal]. I'm not sure if that is possible but we have to start somewhere. The preemption doctrine has many pros and a conMy opinion is that there needs to be a method of deterring terrorism at all costs. Iraq does not need to be a precedent for other countries. Yes it [has harbored] terrorist cells but Im sure it is not the only country to do so. Megan Sheftic, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania It concerns me, mainly, that this doctrine allows one man to have so much power. Revolutionaries fought so many years ago to free themselves of tyrants, yet here we are relinquishing our very own power that was fought and died for. Our interests may be forgotten if one man were to make a wrong decision. What about the ramifications of taking this action? What about our friends abroad? Will they be targeted? Will the tensions between Jews and Muslims in Israel and Palestine only increase; the rift

33

between them grow deeper? The cost for this preemptive strike is enormous and we will bear the brunt of it alone, our taxes will sky rocket and our economy will dip while the deficit grows yet larger. What about the relationship we have with our allies, who will surely suffer and has suffered since we went into Iraq? These people are our friends, and the European Unions opinion should have mattered to us, yet their voices fell upon deaf [American ears.] And the United Nations, an organization that we helped form; we have allowed ourselves to discredit and dishonor by going above its head. If the United States wont comply with the United Nations, why should anyone? Preoccupied with a war abroad, we cannot allow domestic issues to [languish]; issues like medical insurance and unemployment. We have dishonored ourselves by passing a bill that undermines the Republic we fought for, and by allowing a President to act without direct instruction from the Senate. Future applications of the resolution will allow Bush and later Presidents to act openly by giving them a blank check with which to wage war. A resolution this open ended may be justified in the Iraqi case, but future cases may not warrant such use, yet it has been made readily available.

34

Required Reading
An Excerpt From British Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech in Brighton, England on October 2, 2001
And here in this country and in other nations around the world, laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberties, but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all, freedom from terror. New extradition laws will be introduced. New rules to ensure asylum is not a front for terrorist entry; this country is proud of its tradition in giving asylum to those fleeing tyranny--we will always do so--but we have duty to protect the system from abuse. It must be overhauled radically, so that from now on those who abide by the rules, get help, and those that don't, can no longer play the system to gain unfair advantage over others. Around the world, the 11th of September is bringing government and people to reflect, consider and change. And in this process, amidst all the talk of war and action, there is another dimension appearing, there is a coming together; the power of community is asserting itself. We are realizing how fragile are our frontiers in the face of the world's new challenges. Today, conflicts rarely stay within national boundaries. Today, a tremor in one financial market is repeated in the markets of the world. Today, confidence is global, it's presence or its absence. Today, the threat is chaos, because for people with work to do and family life to balance and mortgages to pay and careers to further pensions to provide, the yearning is for order and stability. And if it doesn't exist elsewhere, it's unlikely to exist here. I have long believed that this interdependence defines the new world we live in.

35

You know, people say, ``Well, we're only acting because it's the USA that was attacked.'' ``Double standards,'' they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. And the skeptics said it was pointless, that we made matters worse, we made Milosevic stronger and look what happened. We won. The refugees went home. The policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed. And one of the great dictators of the last century will finally see justice in this century. And I tell you that if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993 when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also. We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group of gangsters threatened its democratically elected government and people, and we, as a country, should--and I, as a prime minister, do--give thanks for the brilliance, dedication and shear professionalism of the British Armed Forces. We can't do it all, neither can the Americans. But, you know, the power of the international community could, together, if it choose to. It could, with our help, sort out the blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 3 million people have died through war or famine in the last decade. A partnership for Africa between the developed and the developing world based around a new African initiative, it's there to be done if we find the will. On our side: provide more aid untied to trade, write off debt, help with good governance and infrastructure, training to the soldiers with U.N. blessing and conflict resolution, encouraging investment and access to our markets so that we practice the free trade we're so fond of preaching. But it is a partnership. On the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights, no tolerance of bad governments from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe...proper commercial, legal and financial systems, the will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide troops to police them. The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world, as a community, focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, that scar will become deeper and angrier still.

36

We could defeat climate change, if we chose to. Kyoto is right. We will implement it and call upon all other nations to do so. But it's only a start. With imagination, we could use or find the technologies that create energy without destroying our planet, we could provide work and trade without deforestation. If human kind was able, finally, to make industrial progress without the factory conditions of the 19th century, surely, we have the wit and will to develop economically without despoiling the very environment we depend upon. And if we wanted to, we could breathe new life into the Middle East peace process, and we must. The state of Israel must be given recognition by all; fear from terror, know that it is accepted as a part of the future of the Middle East not its very existence under threat. And the Palestinians must have justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land as equal partners with Israel... We know that it is the only way. Just as we know that, in our own peace process in Northern Ireland, there will be no unification of Ireland except by consent. And there will be no return to the days of Unionist or Protestant Supremacy because those days have no place in the modern world. So the Unionists must accept justice and equality, the Nationalists. The Republicans must show that they have given up violence, not just a ceasefire, but weapons put beyond use. And not only the Republicans, but those people who call themselves Loyalists, who do by acts of terrorism sully the very name of the United Kingdom. We know this also: The values we believe in should shine through what we do in Afghanistan. To the Afghan people, we make this commitment: The conflict will not be the end. We will not walk away as the outside world has done so many times before that. If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broad based, that unites all ethnic groups and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence. And more than ever before, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition

37

so that, inside and outside Afghanistan, the refugees--4.5 million in the move even before September 11--are given shelter, food and help during the winter months. The world community must show as much its capacity for compassion as for force. The critics will say, ``But how can the world be a community, nations act in their own self-interest.'' Of course, they do, but what is the lesson of the financial markets, climate change, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation or world trade? It is that our self-interest and our mutual interest are today inextricably woven together. This is the politics of globalization. And I realize why people protest against globalization. We watch aspects of it with trepidation, we feel powerless as if we were pushed to and fro by forces far beyond our control. But there is a risk. The political leaders, faced with street demonstrations, pander to the argument rather than answer it. The demonstrators are right to say, ``There is injustice, poverty, environmental degradation.'' But globalization is a fact, and, by and large, it is driven by people not just in finance, but in communication, in technology, increasingly in culture and recreation, in the world of the Internet, information technology, television. There's going to be globalization. And in trade, frankly, the problem is not there's too much of it. On the contrary, there's too little of it. The issue is not how to stop globalization; the issue is how we use the power of community to combine globalization with justice. If globalization works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and it will deserve to fail. But if we follow the principles that have served us here so well at home-that power, wealth and opportunity must be in the hands of the many, not the few--if we make that our guiding light for the global economy, then it will be a force for good and an international movement we should take pride in leading.

38

Democrats For Preemption: An Old Doctrine

By Gleaves Whitney
When it comes to Iraq, most Democrats straddle a line. They concede that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and that he would show no compunction about using them under certain circumstances, but they do not support a preemptive strike to eliminate him or the weapons. Jesse Jackson, addressing an enthusiastic crowd near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, intoned: "If we launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, we lose all moral authority." Among the early presidential candidates who intend to challenge Bush, Democrats Howard Dean and Al Sharpton are vociferously opposed to a preemptive strike. They are representative of a position that argues not just that a preemptive war is unjust, but that it runs counter to the American tradition. Counter to the American tradition? It might surprise Democrats to learn that there was a time when leaders nay, giants in their own party defended America's right to strike preemptively. Either today's Democrats are willfully ignorant of that tradition, or ashamed of it. Either way, in the Senate floor debate over whether to authorize President Bush to use force against the Butcher of Baghdad, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke more truthfully than she realized: "My vote" she said, in support of authorizing the use of force, "is not a vote for any new doctrine of preemption." True enough, senator. For there is an old doctrine of preemption developed and articulated within your own party. During the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy told the American people, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security" [emphasis added]. Kennedy then got in a dig at Hitler's appeasers. "The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and

39

unchallenged, ultimately leads to war. Our policy has been one of patience and restraint," the president said. "But now further action is required and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing." JFK was hardly the first Democratic president to make the case for preemption. In a fireside chat three months prior to Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned the Nazis that the U.S. would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack" [emphasis added]. And then FDR uttered these famous words: "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." A vivid metaphor for preemption, that. (Roosevelt, by the way, delivered this 1941 fireside chat on a date that would take on significance to a later generation September 11.) Perhaps the most recent Democratic President, Bill Clinton, was aware of his predecessors' eloquent defense of preemption when in 1998 he launched Operation Desert Fox, an intense 70-hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign, the president told Americans, "we will maintain a strong military presence in the area, and we will remain ready to use it if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction." Clinton left no room for doubt. If the U.N. could not undertake weapons inspections on a regular basis, the U.S. would "remain vigilant and prepared to use force if we see that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons programs" [emphasis added]. FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton. Three presidents. Three generations of leadership. Three public defenses of preemption. Democrats, it turns out, have eloquently made the case for President Bush. Gleaves Whitney is the author of a book on the wartime speeches of American presidents and editor of American Presidents: Farewell Messages to the Nation, 1796-20

40

Congressional Record
Federalist Paper No. 63 specifically notes the responsibilities of the Senate in foreign affairs as follows: An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is that, in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can always be followed. Senate September 26, 2002 Senator Feingold In the context of this debate on Iraq, we are being asked to embrace a sweeping new national doctrine. I am troubled by the administration's emphasis on preemption and by its suggestion that, in effect, deterrence and containment are obsolete. What the administration is talking about in Iraq really sounds much more like prevention, and I wonder if they are not using these terms, "preemption" and ``prevention'' interchangeably. Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. It is the difference between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a given government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity. It is the difference between having intelligence indicating that a country is in negotiations with an unquestionably hostile and violent enemy like alQaida to provide them with weapons of mass destruction and worrying, on the other hand, that someday that country might engage in negotiations. Of course, prevention does have an important role in our national security planning. It certainly should. We should use a range of tools in a focused

41

way to tackle prevention--diplomatic, sometimes multilateral, economic. That is one of the core elements of any foreign policy, and I stand ready to work with my President and my colleagues to bolster those preventive measures and to work on the long-term aspects of prevention, including meaningful and sustained engagement in places that have been far too neglected. Unilaterally using our military might to pursue a policy of prevention around the world is not likely to be seen as self-defense abroad, and I am not at all certain that casting ourselves in this role will make the United States any safer. Would a world in which the most powerful countries use military force in this fashion be a safer world? Would it be the kind of world in which our national values could thrive? Would it be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits will increase in number every day? Announcing that we intend to play by our own rules, which look as if we will make up as we go along, may not be conducive to building a strong global coalition against terrorism, and it may not be conducive to combating the anti-American propaganda that passes for news in so much of the world. Fundamentally, I think broadly applying this new doctrine is at odds with our historical national character. We will defend ourselves fiercely if attacked, but we are not looking for a fight. To put it plainly: Our country historically has not sought to use force to make over the world as we see fit. I am also concerned this approach may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their own preemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager to see a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or by China or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerous in the hands of anybody else? The United States does have to rethink our approach to security threats in the wake of September 11, but it is highly questionable to suggest that containment is dead, that deterrence is dead, particularly in cases in which the threat in question is associated with a state and not non-state actors, and it is highly questionable to embark on this sweeping strategy of preventive military operations.

42

Senate October 4, 2002 Senator Byrd I respect the President of the United States. We should work with him, and we should support him when we can. But remember what Madison said: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man. We elected representatives of the people are not supposed to follow any President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, meekly and without question. I do not believe there is a Republican in this body who knows me well who would believe for a moment, if we had a Democratic President today, I would not be saying exactly what I am saying right now. I took the position against our President on the line item veto. I did not go along with President Clinton because he supported the line item veto. Nor would I go with any President in this more fateful matter, this question of peace or war, if they were a Democrat. I am standing where the Constitution says I should stand. There is no king in the American scheme of things. There is no place for kings in our constitutional system. But there is a place for men. When I say ``men,'' of course, I am speaking of men and women, but when the Constitution was written it was only men. There is no place for weakness. There is no place for wishy-washiness. There is only a place for steadfastness and a place for supreme dedication to the Constitution of the United States, for every word that is in it, and to stand by the spirit with which it speaks. We cannot stand by that spirit and just go along. The people want a political party that stands for something. They want men and women in office who stand for them. They do not want men and women in office who just go along because their party goes along or because the President goes along. They want men and women who think for themselves and who keep in mind that they are sent here by the people who cannot speak on this floor but who expect us to speak. That is where I stand. That is where I am going to stand always and forever. As long as I live and have the privilege of representing the people of the State of West Virginia, that is exactly where I am going to be, regardless of where any President is. If I differ with him, I will say so, and I differ with this President on this issue.

43

I do not think there is any new evidence that compels us to vote on this resolution before we go home. Oh, they say we need to get it behind us. We cannot get this issue behind us. We can vote for this resolution, but that will not get the issue behind us. The President will have us back on that question every day until the election is over, and he can do that. He has the bully pulpit. Do not think for a moment this issue is going to be put behind us before this election is over. Another thing we will not get behind us is the record of where I stand, the record of where he or she stands. We will not get that behind us. That will be there engraved in stone, in marble, and in bronze, until the Lord comes home. Until kingdom come, it will be there. You cannot efface it. You cannot erase it. It is there. I intend to let my record stand. I do not intend to put a blemish on it by walking away from the Constitution in this fateful hour. There are questions to be asked. What is going to happen to Israel? What is going to happen to the people of Israel? What is going to happen to the Palestinians? What are the ramifications of going to war in a preemptive strike, which this Constitution does not represent and does not allow? What are the ramifications around the globe? What is the image of the United States then going to be: A nation that is a rogue nation, that is determined to wipe out other nations with a preemptive strike? And what will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will other nations be encouraged to do the same? What will be the cost? How many men and women do we expect will become casualties if this country goes to war in a preemptive strike against Iraq? What is going to be the cost in dollars? The President's economic advisor says: Oh, $100 billion or $200 billion. He says that is nothing, $100 billion. That is nothing. Even $9 billion has been a stumbling block and a bone in the craw of this administration when it comes to appropriations bills. All that has kept us from having agreements on appropriations bills is $9 billion. What is going to be the price tag? What is it going to cost in terms of homeland security? Might we expect other terrorist acts if we launch a preemptive strike? How can we be sure we will not be subject to preemptive strikes of terrorists? What will be the cost? What is likely to happen on our borders? Are we going to have to maintain greater vigilance

44

in our ports? What is going to happen to the needs of veterans? What is going to happen to the needs of education? What is this going to do to the American pocketbook? What is it going to do to the deficits? There are these and many more questions. They ought to be questioned. It is not unpatriotic to ask. This Nation itself helped to build, helped to create the building blocks of biological weaponry years ago when we sent to Saddam Hussein, this country made available to Iraq, back in the days when we thought that Saddam Hussein would be our friend. A few years later, after we provided Iraq help in making biological weapons, today we find he is our enemy. This is the way it is. Yesterday's friend is today's enemy. We have known about the biological weapons for years. We helped Iraq to have the building blocks. Now we have claimed this is something new. This is not new. This is not a new pretext. We have known this all along. The Israelis knew these things. They knew what was happening in Iraq with respect to nuclear weapons. These things are not new, but they are new just before this election. That is what I am saying. Let us come back after the election and then debate, and then, who knows? I might join with the distinguished Senator in promoting a resolution to declare war, Congress declare war. So what is new? That is what I am saying to my distinguished friend. We knew about their packaging. Why didn't the CIA Director say it to me when I asked him twice, once up in 407 and once in my own office, What is there that is new from your standpoint of intelligence that we did not know 3 months ago, 6 months ago? He has not been able to come up with anything. So I say to my distinguished friend from Virginia, yes, I am concerned about packaging and all that. But that is not new. That should not make it all-compelling that we vote on this matter of peace or war, or preemptive strike, before we go home. The people out there want us to come home. Let's go home to the people who send us here; let's talk with them in town meetings; let's tell them what we know. They have questions they want answered. Let's go to our people, our bosses, the people whom we represent. Let's go back to them before we make this fateful decision once and for all, which involves so much of the treasure and blood of the people who sent us here. Let's go back to them; let's get their feelings; and then we can come back and make this decision.

45

We are voting on this new Bush doctrine of preventive strikes--preemptive strikes. There is nothing in this Constitution about preemptive strikes. Yet in this rag here, this resolution, S.J. Res. 46, we are about to vote to put the imprimatur of the Congress on that doctrine. That is what the Bush administration wants us to do. They want Congress to put its stamp of approval on that Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes. That is a mistake. That is a mistake. Are we going to present the face of America as the face of a bully that is ready to go out at high noon with both guns blazing or are we going to maintain the face of America as a country which believes in justice, the rule of law, freedom and liberty and the rights of all people to work out their ultimate destiny? I think the President would be in a much better position with the United Nations to leave the case as he had made it. He made a fine case. He made a case in which there was no room for water or air. He placed it right in front of the United Nations, the fact that that body has been recreant in its duty and its responsibility. It passed resolution after resolution after resolution, and has done very little. I think the President is in a much better position, ultimately, if we let the United Nations speak first and not go to the United Nations and say: Now, we would love to hear what you have to say, but regardless of what you have to say, we have made up our minds, and if you don't do it, we are going to do it. Well, why not let him do it? I think this responsibility should be left clearly in the lap of the United Nations. We will make our decision later, when the President comes back to this institution which, under this Constitution, has the power--not any President--the power to declare war. Senate October 8, 2002 Mr. Byrd I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank and commend all those Senators who have been speaking in support of the resolution that will soon come before the Senate for a decision by the Senate. I think they have rendered a service. I

46

commend Mr. Lieberman. I commend Mr. Warner. And I commend those others who are cosponsors of the resolution. I commend them on their high level of argumentation they have put forth. This is what the country needs. The country needs to hear more of this, and I have only the utmost admiration for those who feel as they do in support of this resolution. The Senate is the anchor of the Republic, and it is here on this battlefield many of the country's great Senators have expounded their views and taken sides, one way or the other, on the great issues that have come before the Nation over this period of more than 200 years. I have listened, as best I could, to the various Senators who, for the most part this morning, have spoken in support of the resolution, S.J. Res. 45, which will be at least soon attempted to be amended by S.J. Res. 46. Madam President, I am not against just any and every resolution of this nature. I could very well be for a resolution. If this debate were to go on for a while, or perhaps to go until after the election, giving us time to debate it thoroughly, giving Senators time to amend it, modify it, to change it, it might very well be I, too, could support a resolution. After all, that is what we should strive for. We should strive for a national consensus. If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown together, it was a cut-and-paste operation. I would hope we could come to a conclusion, after ample debate, that we could join hands across the aisle, join hands between the two parties, join hands with the executive branch. I would hope we could do that. And I do not think that is beyond the realm of possibility. I think it would be possible to develop a resolution which might get a unanimous vote in this Senate, but it would take time. It cannot be this resolution which would be unanimous because it will not be unanimous. My concerns about this resolution are, in the main, two--two concerns. Getting into further detail, I can express several concerns. But in the main, I would say my concerns are two in number.

47

One, this resolution authorizes the President to determine and authorizes the President to use military forces as he will, when he will, how he will, and wherever he will, as long as the thread is tied to Iraq, and beyond that-I do not have the resolution in front of me--as long as it is tied, by the thread, to ``defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.'' Madam President, I can talk in considerable detail and at considerable length with respect to the ``whereas'' clauses and with respect to the authorization section, section 3. Suffice it to say this is a blank check, this authorization paragraph is a blank check, given over to the Chief Executive, not just this one but Chief Executives who will succeed him. There is no sunset provision. There is no termination under this authorization. It can go on and on and on until Congress sees fit to terminate it. So it is open-ended. It is a blank check. And it cedes the decision-making power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare war. It cedes that to a Chief Executive--for the moment, Mr. George W. Bush. Succeeding him, who knows? But it is open-ended. If Congress is going to waive that part of the Constitution which gives power to the Congress to declare war--and I am not sure Congress can waive that--but if it is going to, why don't we at least have a sunset provision? Why don't we at least have a cutoff at which time the cession of that power is no longer existent? Is that asking too much? No. 1, my opposition to this resolution in the main is because Congress is ceding--lock, stock, and barrel--its power to declare war, handing that over to a Chief Executive and, by its own terms, as much as to say, that President will determine that. He will use the military forces of these United States--that means the Marines, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, all the military forces of this country--he shall use all of the military forces of this country in whatever ways he determines, wherever he determines, whenever he determines, and for as long as he determines. That is the way it is written--lock, stock, and barrel.

48

Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the doors and say: ``Going fishing.'' Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty up here: ``Out of business.'' That is exactly, that is precisely what we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this resolution. All the ``whereases'' constitute nothing more than fig leaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty fig leaves, with sugar on them. My second objection in the main is that Congress is being stampeded, pressured, adjured, importuned into acting on this blank check before Congress goes out for the election. Doesn't that make this somewhat suspect? Recall, it was only in late August, around August 23, I believe it was, I read in the newspaper where the President was concerned about the intensified talk that was going on with reference to his plans in respect to an attack on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, in that same newspaper report, referred to it as a ``frenzy.'' So even the President, 6 weeks ago, was seeking to allay the concerns of the people in Washington, people all over the country, with respect to any ``plans'' that he might have to attack Iraq. In other words, he was saying: Cool it. Well, that was just 6 weeks ago. Then all of a sudden, the whole focus of attention in this country seems to be directed several thousand miles away from these shores to a country called Iraq, to which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut correctly alluded as that great land between the two great rivers, the old Biblical country of Mesopotamia is such a threat we don't dare wait until after the election. Saddam doesn't present that kind of imminent threat to this country. He doesn't have these kinds of weapons that he would level at this country before the election. Now, something could happen in our midst before the election. It can happen tonight. It can happen today. It has been happening in this area over the past several days, with a sniper taking six lives, and he shot eight persons. People are concerned about issues here at home. We should not try to divert their attention to a threat. I don't say Saddam is not a threat. I say he is not the immediate threat the administration is trying to make him out to be at this point. We have some time. We ought to utilize it. We cannot let Saddam Hussein continue to have weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons. We cannot let him acquire weapons of mass destruction. But there is some time, and I think it is very important we get the United Nations involved here, and the President has made a good start

49

in that direction. He made a fine statement when he spoke to the U.N. He put the burden on them. He laid it at their door. They have been recreant in their duty. We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden. Eleven years ago, the cost of that war was $61.1 billion, and other countries helped shoulder the expenses, with the exception of about $7.5 billion. We ought to be seeking to get others' help. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat, but he has been a threat for many years. I think it is a disservice to the American people to insist their elected representatives in the House and Senate showdown on this fateful decision before the election. Now, that is highly suspect. To those who are pushing it, I have to say it is suspect. Why do they want this vote before the election? I am not the one who determines when the election will fall. We know it is going to take place on November 5. Where is the threat that is so imminent to this country we have to declare war here and now, before the election? It is a distraction. Our Senators and House Members need to be concentrating on the matter, debating it, debating other matters. There are many more matters that cry out for the attention of this country. Why should we not be giving attention to them and not be distracted in this vote by what may happen to me on November 5, if I vote this way or that way? That is not right. It is wrong. It is not doing right by the people of this country. They are entitled to better than that. So I have two main concerns. One, we are ceding the constitutional authority to declare war, and it is open-ended, a blank check. Mr. President, here it is, you can have it. We will just go fishing. You take it and we are out of it. We are out of business. We are out of business for the next year or 2 years or as long as this piece of paper--this blank check--is in effect. You have it. We are cheating the people back home when we vote for that kind of resolution.

50

Madam President, I have much more to say, but I told the Senator from Virginia I would be glad to yield. I do that now, without losing my right to the floor. I call the Senate's attention to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 entitled ``Allied Support On Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say'': President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration. These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force. In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it. ``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara. The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation. ``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said. Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini-state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy. Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

51

As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the total article from the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD Madam President, I quote another article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, this one October 8, 2002, entitled: ``Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War'': While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They say that the administration squelches--squelches--dissenting views that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary. ``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echo his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed.

52

How much time do I have left, Madam President? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. Byrd. I thank the Chair. (Continuing the article): They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together. Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had ``bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq. The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said. Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group. In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological differences.

53

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated October 8, 2002, be printed in the RECORD at the end of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Byrd The President indicated he would lead a coalition, and I hope he will. I hope he will continue to work until he gets a solid coalition together. But if, as the President claims, America will lead a coalition against Iraq, it certainly appears that we have much work to do. The first article I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer bears out a clear message: We have asked the United Nations to act and we should give the United Nations that opportunity. Last night, the President of the United States asked Congress to fully consider the facts in this debate, but I believe that many of the facts are still unclear. We have many questions that demand answers, and we need the time to find those answers. So I suggest we try to get the facts, and the representatives of the American people in Congress need the facts, the clear, unadulterated facts, before Congress votes on the resolution. The questions I have are the same questions the American people have. A poll published last Sunday in the New York Times reports that a majority of Americans think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy. By a 2-to-1 margin, those polled would prefer to see U.N. inspectors have more time to do their job. Sixty-five percent of those polled think it is better to wait for allies before any attack on Iraq--in other words, not go it alone. Obviously, the American people are far from convinced that we must attack Iraq. I think as time goes on, if this matter is fully debated, we will find a reverse in the polls from what we have been seeing lately. We are going to find that the American people are not all that ready to invade Iraq all by themselves; not all that ready to put the U.N. aside and say we will go it alone--if you do not do it, we will--and not all that ready to send their boys and girls, their men and women, their loved ones, to war in a foreign land without leaving it up to Congress as to when war should be declared. I yield the floor.

54

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 6, 2002

Allied Support on Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say By Warren P. Strobel
WASHINGTON.--President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration. These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United National Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force. In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it. An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara. The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air based at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation. Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said. Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini-state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy. Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

55

As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.'' The defense secretary told a House of Representatives committee Sept. 18 that Bush aides ``know for a fact'' that the United States would not be fighting Iraq along if it failed to obtain a U.N. resolution. ``There are any number of countries that have already announced their support,'' he said. Bush said Thursday that if the United Nations and Iraq didn't eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, ``the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders.'' Several officials said that while those statements were technically true, there was a coalition yet. Diplomats said privately that only staunch ally Britain and Bulgaria--a member of the U.N. Security Council that wants to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance--had said they were willing to act without United Nations cover. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been working intensively to persuade other U.S. Security Council members to back a tough resolution that would force Iraq to accept strict new rules for inspections or face a U.S.-led invasion. He has run into stiff resistance, particularly from France and Russia, both of which hold veto power on the council.

56

Congressional Record October 9, 2002

SenatorFeingold:
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification. SenatorLeahy I have never believed, nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately, we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely the answer. If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it alone. Senator Hagel While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control. In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.

57

America cannot trade a new focus on Iraq for a lesser effort in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. The bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians continues, and the danger mounts. Stability in Afghanistan is not assured. We must carry through with our commitment. Stability in this region depends on it. America's credibility is at stake, and long-term stability in central and South Asia hangs in the balance. No guesswork about nuclear weapons. There on the Korean peninsula reside nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 37,000 American troops. Despite setting the right course for disarmament in Iraq, the administration has yet to define an end game in Iraq or explain the extent of the American commitment if regime change is required, or describe how our actions in Iraq might affect our other many interests and commitments around the world. I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. America has continued to take on large, complicated, and expensive responsibilities that will place heavy burdens on all of us over the next generation. It may well be necessary, but Americans should understand the extent of this burden and what may be required to pay for it and support it in both American blood and trade. As the Congress votes on this resolution, we must understand that we have not put Iraqi issues behind us. This is just the beginning. The risks should not be understated, miscast, or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts. We in the Congress are men and women of many parts. For me, it is the present-day Senator, the former soldier, or concerned father who guides my judgment and ultimate vote? The responsibilities of each lead me to support the Lieberman-McCain-Warner-Bayh resolution, for which I will vote. In the end, each of us who has the high honor of holding public office has the burden and privilege of decision and responsibilities. It is a sacred trust we share with the public. We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be. we have people saying we shouldn't get involved in this, as if we are some big bamboozling country wrought on doing damage. History will tell

58

us and tell the world that that is not why America would get involved in this situation. Isn't that right? Historically, the United States has only used military force when we can do some good. We stand for some principle or concept that we really think is tremendous--in this case, democracy versus dictatorship, democracy and freedom versus the kind of despicable character about whom our President has been speaking to us for a long time. The world is seeing a new kind of war that started with the destruction of our towers and our Pentagon. This war has its origins right there in that Middle East where, if action is not taken, humankind is going to have some big problems. I am sure that resolution has been read to the American people and those watching us more than once. But let me just state a couple of them. Prior to using force or within 48 hours after exercising the authority, the President is required to certify to Congress that diplomatic and other peaceful means cannot protect our national security against the threat posed by Iraq. Also, he must certify that such means are not likely to bring Iraq into compliance with all relevant U.N. resolutions. Second, only in the event that diplomatic efforts fail and Iraq continues to breach its international obligations and the inspectors are given every opportunity for unimpeded access, then our President can use the military. He doesn't have to come back to us under those circumstances. Believe me, Saddam Hussein and his military and his scientists will immediately understand what it means if we give our President the authority to use force. There is no longer the delay in communications. Iraq will know we are serious, and we can be more effective in our diplomacy. If it doesn't work, we leave it in the hands of our President. Some observers think this resolution gives the President too much authority. In fact, the resolution gives the President no more authority than he already has as Commander in Chief to provide for the national security for the United States. What the resolution does is to recognize the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. It says he is a weapon of mass destruction. It calls the President to exercise this authority as a last resort, and only in the event that all negotiations are fruitless, and with the added condition that he explain his actions to the Congress.

59

I believe the best way to prevent the Middle East, in this moment of history, from exploding into a war is for us to recognize how important we are to achieving peace, how important it is that we ask our President to be our instrument of peace in this very troubled part of the world. Even a person as culpable and as lacking in human decency as Saddam Hussein will understand that our President, once given the proper authority, will take all necessary action to ensure the security of America and humankind against the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he is far less likely to unleash weapons of mass destruction when he knows that the American military, with the full support of Congress, is poised to stand in his way. We have just today approved the biggest Defense bill ever in the history of America. We have given the President most of what he asked for in that bill. I believe it could not be worse news for Saddam Hussein than to learn that the U.S. Congress has approved the money needed to bolster our military and then, to learn shortly thereafter, that it has approved a resolution giving our President the real authority he needs to use military force to disarm Iraq. I believe this is the best way to secure peace. Senator Sarbannes I ask my colleagues to consider how important it is for our future, in so many ways--not just in military and security terms, but also for our economic and political and indeed the whole range of our interests--that we seek to work with others and not set out on a path of unilateral action. That the U.S. has such great military resources at its command makes the decision that much more urgent. It may seem paradoxical, as Stanley Hoffman has observed, so powerful a nation should choose to work in concert with other nations rather than through willful imposition of its power on others. But that principle has served our national interests well, and that is where our long-term interests lie. Mrs Murray This marks a shift from our longstanding national policy, and so far we have not been told how it applies to the world beyond Iraq. Obviously, if troops or tanks are amassing at the border, we have the right to defend ourselves, but to strike on the basis of suspicion alone is another matter. It is something this Congress and the American people need to fully explore and debate before we endorse the preemption doctrine.

60

From November 8, 2003 issue of the Economist

Greatest danger or greatest hope? Yes, America is different. But it always has been. Mostly, the difference is good for the world, not bad.
Until a little over two years ago, the fashionable topic for debate in conferences, opinion pages and even bars around the world was whether globalization was really Americanization, and whether that was a good or a bad thing. Now, few pundits anguish about whether their countries are having to become more like America. The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It is not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead, it should be feared. Inevitably, Iraq is the crucible for this debate, though other events and actions---the Kyoto Protocol, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, Guantanamo Bay, federal budget deficits, even cotton subsidies---are being called in as thesis reinforcements. Yet Iraq ought also to cast this debate in a colder, more sobering light. Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails? Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? If America, under George Bush or a Democratic rival, were to withdraw hastily under the pressure of attacks such as the downing in Iraq on November 2nd of a military helicopter, would that be an encouraging sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act? Given that foreign voices were so keen to disparage America for withdrawing from Somalia in 1994, for failing for years to intervene in the Balkans, for having "allowed" the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and for being reluctant recently to send troops to Liberia, why should so many be hostile now to intervention in Iraq? Exceptionally exceptional One answer to this final question is that incoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility

61

themselves fee free to snipe at those who do. Another is that it is natural to feel afraid when dramatic, actions are being undertaken, for the consequences of such actions can themselves be dramatic. But a further answer is that to the out-side world America is a strangely puzzling country---strangely, given the openness of its society and the abundance of information about it---and at times the puzzlement turns to worry. This is one of those times. Such times have, however occurred ever since the county was founded. As our Washington bureau chief writes in his survey this week, "A nation apart", the very phrase "American exceptionalism" that is so often heard these days was first exceptionalism" that is so often heard these days was first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835-40, when that brilliant Frenchman wrote his "Democracy in America." Many of the things he pointed out then as profound differences between America and other countries continue to be remarked upon today---its vociferous democracy, its decentralization, its liking for voluntary associations, the intensity of its people's religious belief. Even during the cold war, which critics like now to describe as a time when fear of the Soviet Union acted as a bond between Americans and others, today's sorts of worries were commonplace. Graham Greene's "The Quiet American" (1955) complained that naive American idealists did more damage than good. Countless films, whether made by Americans or by foreigners, raised worries about a sinister military-industrial complex, about reds-under-thebed obsessive ness, about zealotry. Two other things, though, need also to be observed. One is that in recent years it is true that some of America's distinctiveness has become more marked. That is so in economics (working hou5rs, productivity, innovation), society (population growth, religious belief, patriotism) and politics (a win-at-all-costs partisanship). Indeed, the combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor is likely to make America even stronger in future, not weaker, despite the fact that high federal budget deficits could force some strength-sapping tax rises. At least in economics, other countries are again going to have to try to follow some of America's example, if their living standards are to be kept high and unemployment low. Democracy as solution, and as problem The second observation, though, is that some elements of American distinctiveness divide America just as much as they divide it from others. Religious, puritanical, conservative Americans (mainly Republicans) are

62

ranged against more secular, hedonistic, tolerant ones (mainly Democrats). Until the 2002 mid-term elections, carried out under the shadow of September 11th, successive polls had showed America to be a "50-50 nation". Both parties can find trends that could favor them in future: demography could favor Democrats, while economic drive and patriotism may favor Republicans. In America's cacophonous and hyper-active democracy, this means that actions and adventures tend to be selfregulating, at least over a period of years. Yet that offers both reassurance and worry: it may moderate excesses, and curb the influence of lobbies such as the religious right; but it could also encourage cutting and running from messes overseas. If that were to occur, it would be a disaster for America and a tragedy for the world. The basic dilemma that was faced in Afghanistan and Iraq was that doing nothing and intervening both looked bad and risky options, but that doing nothing looked worse. In the Middle East as in Central Asia, intervention has been painful and progress has been stumbling. But despite the continued instability in both countries, life is better in both than before the intervention occurred; and much, much better than if al-Qaeda's terror camps had been left in place or if Saddam Hussein had been left in power. As the next leader argues, more needs to be done in Afghanistan, and at least some of it is likely to be. In Iraq, however, if the casualty toll among American forces keeps rising it could well prompt influential voices in Washington, including among Republicans, to press Mr. Bush to declare victory and retreat. Fortunately, he is unlikely to. The flip side of some of the things critics dislike about him---a black-and-white view of the world, a tin ear for dissenting view---makes him also show a stubborn determination. Put more favorably, he is a man with a sense of duty. Put more cynically, perhaps, he is a man who will be keenly aware that early withdrawal will look like failure, and such failure would be politically suicidal. By intervening in Iraq, against the majority of world opinion but with the courage of its own convictions and the support of a few allies, America showed that it was indeed a different nation from others: one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right. Such behavior is alarming precisely because it is bold and by today's standards, different. It is never likely to bring forth a cascade of praise or gifts. It was done, however, in a way likely to reinforce the concern, as administration official poured abuse on their foreign critics and, through their violations of human rights, damaged America's own moral authority. Now though,

63

the argument has to be won by creating facts on the ground. If the facts are of failure, America will be likely to shrink back into its shell. But success is there to be had. it will take a long, costly and painful effort. Only once it is done, however, will hope be restored and danger dispelled.

64

Questions Re: The Required Reading

Prime Minister Tony Blair's Speech Q1-What does the Prime Minister mean by "politics of globalization"? He wants to use the "power of community" to do what? Greaves Whitney Q 2- Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned. Excerpt from November 8, 2003 Issue of the Economist Q 3- Alexis de Tocqueville was mentioned in the Economist article. Name three qualities de Tocqueville found exceptional about Americans. Q 4- Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails? Q 5- Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? Q 6- If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would that be a sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act? Q 7- What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future? Congressional Record Q 8- Name three U.S. Senators who expressed concern about expanding the doctrine of preemption. Q 9- State Senator Feingold's definition of preemption and prevention. How does he describe the difference between the two? Do you agree with the Senator? Explain. Q 10- In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain. Q 11- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which our national values would thrive? Q 12- In your opinion, would such a world be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits would increase in number daily? Q 13- Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption. Q 14- Who said "The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man."? What was the context ? Q 15- Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns. regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.

65

66

Answers To Questions Re: Required Reading

What did Tony Blair mean by "politics of globalization"? He wants to use the "power of community" to do what? In using the term politics of globalization, Prime Minister Tony Blair means that the world communitys self-interest and mutual interest are inextricably woven together and that the world community must show its compassion as well as its force. He wants to use the power of community to solve the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo defeat climate change, breathe new life into the Middle East peace process, and to not walk away from the challenges facing Afghanistan. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Tony Blairis simply saying that all of the countries of the world rely on each other for some reason or another and should work for common goals. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Prime Minister Tony Blair describes how nations will always act in their own self interest. [He believes] the international community should also act in the interests of all countries. He calls the combination of self and mutual interests the politics of globalization. Since globalization is becoming increasingly evident in areas such as communication, we should accept it but make sure it benefits the whole instead of just a few. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania What Prime Minister Blair means by the politics of globalization is that the demands of the world economy must be upheld and met, while nations retain their independence and individuality. The creation of the internet has greatly increased the global economy. People from all over the world now interact with each other everyday buying and selling their goods. Prime Minister Blair wants to use the vigor of this community [as a resource]. Mr. Blair believes individual communities have the ability to bolster the global economy and create a better market for the entire world. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

67

In using the words politics of globalization Prime Minister Tony Blair means that he wants to see us come together. He says that with combined imagination we could use or find the technologies that create energy without destroying our planet. Through this globalization he says that we could also provide work and trade without deforestation. With globalization we can finallybreathe new life into the Middle East peace process; something he views as a must. After September 11th, countries around the world, including our own and Great Britain, realized that one country cant do it all. That is why he believes that we should use the power of the community to solve the problems we see in the world, the things we cant do alone. He says that the state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world, but if we were to come together - use the power of the community - we could heal it with strong dedication and focus. Together we could sort out the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where three million people have died through war or famine in the last decade. Together the power of the community can do so much good. Krista Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Tony Blair is saying that the major events all over the world should be of interest to each person and each government because at some point we are all affected. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee The politics of globalization refers to the [act] of balancing the needs of the global community while maintaining distinct and independent nations. As society continues to move forward technologically and otherwise, our world will continue to shrink. As little as twenty years ago global entrepreneurship was practically unheard of. Now small businesses that operate in spare bedrooms are making connections with markets halfway a round the world. Society is changing and interdependence has become inescapable. The only question that remains is what the citizens of the world will do with the powers inherent in this new world community. I believe that the powers of [the world] community to do good are both unchecked and untapped. Who better to promote ideas of world peace than the world as a whole? How can we end world hunger without the cooperation of the farthest corners of the globe? If used wisely the strength of this community could propel the peoples of the world into a

68

quality of life yet unseen in history. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania The Prime Minister wants to use the power of community to allow countries to work together to protect themselves from threats that they are all subject to; from terrorism, from disease, from environmental problems, problems that will cause the entire world to suffer if not fixed. He wants nations to work together for the good of all, not just themselves. It would be something that would happen if countries were enlightened to the power of community or able to juggle the politics of globalization. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee How does Senator Feingold define preemption and prevention? How does he describe the difference between the two? Do you agree with the Senator? Explain. Senator Feingold defines preemption as a first strike against an enemy that plans to attack instead of defending oneself from the attack. He defines prevention as the use of immediate force against an enemy that has a possibility to attack or a desire to attack. Feingold says the difference between the two is whether the amount of intelligence that is collected is enough to warrant preemption or prevention. I agree with the Senator that there is a very fine line between the two and that the only distinguishing fact is that one type has enough intelligence to act and the other may not. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Preemption: acting offensively knowing an enemy will attack. Prevention: use of force in the foresight of a future attack. The Senator describes the difference as being a matter of knowing someone will attack you (preemption) or assuming someone will attack you (prevention) as a justification for using military means to protect yourself. In some cases, I believe that preemption may be used as a preventive measure. However, in todays complex world, I do not believe a general definition can encompass and be applied to any given situation. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California Senator Feingold describes preemption as the knowledge of the planning of an attack by an enemy, but not waiting to defend oneself. Prevention is believing an enemy may attack, and using that as a justification to attack first. I must, however, disagree with Senator Feingold. The US government called the attacks against Iraq preemptive attacks. Under

69

Senator's Feingold's definition, they are more like preventative attacks. Iraq never threatened the US, some simply believed that Iraq might attack. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Senator Feingold differentiates between prevention and preemption based on the amount and reliability of information collected. Attacking with a high degree of certainty and reliable information about impending strikes would be considered preemptive and would not be viewed negatively by most Americans. Problems arise when leaders confuse prevention and preemption and wage war based on sketchy tips and fear. I believe the Senators definitions are correct. I feel that what Feingold would call preventative attacks must be restricted in order to protect the world from itself. Imagine the vast amounts of chaos and violence that would erupt if all nations turned to such policies. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Senator Feingoldsays it is the difference between having intelligence that a country may negotiate with another country to provide them with weapons of mass destruction or worrying that someday the country may engage in these negotiations. After looking at definitions in the dictionary and comparing them to Feingolds definition I agree with his explanation. Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

In your opinion, would the world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a safer world? Explain.
As a pacifist and idealist I feel that preemption only seems viable when compared to prevention. However, in light of recent events and current national policies I will admit that peace while the only permanent solution is not a realistic possibility at this time. That said, I believe preemptive policies would make my world safer but not the world as a whole. Would life be safer for the children of Iraq? What about those in North Korea? It is counterintuitive to believe that a world of more would be a safer world. On this point, I would have to follow my intuition. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania I don't think powerful countries engaging in preemption would make this a safer world. If everyone just went around trying to start fights and conflict that would not be very safe at all. I think the better bet would be

70

prevention. This way if something serious happens you can defend yourself as a country. Striking too fast would cause problems. Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Absolutely not! Obviously, countries should prepare to defend themselves if they feel threatened. But never, under any circumstances, should a country preemptively attack another country. It would be like someone saying he murdered someone because he thought the other person was going to murder him first. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Even when we consider the differences between preemption and prevention, preemption would still not make the world safer if the most powerful countries took part in it. First of all we must consider false information. Who gets to determine how much information is needed to determine that there is a real threat? Do we have to see the missile pointed at us, or is one source who saw it pointing in our direction two days ago enough? Where is the line drawn? Next we have to consider how other countries will react. Will they feel threatened and turn against us? Perhaps another powerful country would go on less information than us and attack us. It could have easily have happened in the Cold War, and without a doubt that wouldn't have made the world safer. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Power corrupts. Money blinds. Often these factors blur the lines of right and wrong. It would be a shame to see the unique governments and peoples crushed by superpowers. These superpowers would be unable to cater to every individual. Civil wars would erupt; juntas and coup d'tats would tear the world apart. New villains would arise and the world would be no safer, just in the hands of fewer powerful men. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California I would have to say yes because if you wait to defend your country when you suspect an enemy is going to attack, you may risk the chances of being able to defend your country. If you dont act immediately, you may be too late. They may attack quickly before you have time to protect yourself Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Yes, I believe the world would be safer if the most powerful countries engage in preemption. If a country, like the United States, knows that someone is planning an attack, they should not wait for innocent people to

71

be killed in order to take action. I firmly believe that if we had been positive that attacks would occur on September 11, 2001, a preemptive strike would have been taken against al-Qaeda. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee No. I think if we were to single out countries to have preemption while other countries were denied the right, allies would be formed among the smaller countries, and war would ensue. Jon Davies, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

In your opinion, would a world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a world in which our national values would thrive?
Imposing our beliefs on other countries is hypocritical and completely against everything [the United States stands for]. By forcing democracy on other nations we are impeding their rights to freedom as humans. We claim that by democratizing these nations we are allowing them to participate in the joys of American freedoms, yet in democratizing them we have prevented them from practicing their freedoms such as freedom of religion, which, in the case of the Middle East, is intertwined deeply in their governments. We have interfered with their right to happiness, which was destroyed when we dropped bombs on their homes and killed their children. Preemption undermines the American republic, by allowing the President to make decisions sans justification, provocation, and affirmation. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California I think our national values would thrive if our nations leaders were able to enact preemptive methods to fight terrorist threats. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee No. We wouldn't have values in a nation that advocates the killing and destruction of others based simply on suspicion. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania In order to answer this question, one must define our national values. For simplicitys sake I will discuss only three of the most fundamental ideals of America: justice, equality, and freedom. Assuming that those are in fact the pillars of our nation, a world of preemption would not only stifle but completely annihilate our national beliefs. How can justice grow in a

72

world devoid of the due process of law? Can it be considered equal to punish all people for the crimes of the ruler? And what sort of freedom can exist in a world of fear and hatred? Reckless use of preemptive doctrines will lead to the endangerment of all ideals, not only those dear to the heart of America. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania In such a world our national values would not thrive, though we might allow ourselves to believe that they would. If all countries took part in their own preemptive strikes there would be chaos. To allow such ideals to thrive, they must be spread through peace and cooperation among nations.... Our ideals cannot thrive in a chaotic and suspicious world. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

In your opinion, would a world in which the most powerful countries engage in preemption be a world in which terrorist recruits would increase in number daily?
The United States could go in and topple regimes, oust terrorists, and set up democracy, but ultimately it only takes a few radicals to reorganize, preach, and attack again. These terrorists havent a thing to lose; they see no need for negotiation. Their goals are to achieve the objectives they define, and they plan to do this through violence. Preemption could destroy the hearts of these terrorist cells, but it could also trigger the masses to join them. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California I believe terrorism would wither because the intelligence net would become so intricate that every event throughout the world would be known about before it took place and safety measures would be taken to eliminate these threats. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania If terrorists believed that we had an expansive information system to learn of the attacks and that we were going to attack before they could, I believe that it would be a world in which terrorism would wither. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Since terrorism feeds, as the name implies, on fear and malice a world abounding with these characteristics would be the perfect breeding ground for terrorism. The eradication of terrorism worldwide must begin at

73

home. This means the United State must take strides to remove any methods rooted in hatred from the international arsenal of our country. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania In my opinion it would be a world where terrorist recruits would increase in number daily. I mean, look around. The world we live in is not getting better; it is getting worse. I think if we go with preemption we will get the terrorists before they [invade] our territory. Prevention isnt going to help because you are standing by and waiting for an attack. If you wait then it may be too late and we will get cut from behind. So with all of the bad leaders around the world with terrorism it will get worse. The leaders may drop out but they have followers. Ann Marie Pepper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Terrorists numbers would most certainly increase as the hatred of America rose. We are already seen as conceited and supremacists. This attitude would undoubtedly increase if we expanded our preemption policies. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Discuss three reasons to favor the doctrine of preemption.

The United States must protect itself and its interests. Even though the approval of the United Nations is of the utmost importance, the veto structure would allow multilateralism to be stopped with a single NO vote. We cannot depend on the United Nations to govern our entire foreign policy and to enforce every single issue; they simply are not strong enough and lack the resources. We cannot allow the safety of United States citizens to rest in the hands of the U.N. This doctrine allows the President to take immediate action and bypass long, complicated Congressional approvals. He may act to protect the safety of Americans freely and as he sees fit. And thirdly, he is restricted by having to justify himself to the United States Congress, demanding that the President be able to prove that all diplomatic negotiations failed before the military intervened. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California First, this doctrine would allow President Bush to engage the United States military in action against an enemy that plans to attack our country. This speeds up the process of confirmation of intelligence evidence which is crucial to conducting a first strike. This doctrine will help eliminate threats in the future by heightening intelligence nets around the world.

74

Third, this act will deter countries from planning attacks when they know that if the U.S. finds out at any time, they will attack without warning and devastate the opposition. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania A doctrine of preemption is an irreversible and decisive stand against terrorism and its power over the world. It is also a means, at least initially, protecting the American people from potential aggressors. Lastly, preemption presents an opportunity, though certainly not a guarantee, to rid the world of one source of violence and hatred. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania One reason to favor the doctrine of preemption would be to prevent the loss of innocent lives. If we had obtained knowledge of the September 11th attacks beforehand, who knows how many lives could have been saved by a preemptive strike on Afghanistan and al-Qaeda? Another reason to favor the doctrine of preemption would be that it gives the U.S. another option when deterrence and containment fail. If we know a country has obtained weapons of mass destruction, we could use preemption to obtain the weapons before they are deployed against us. Finally, the doctrine of preemption is favorable because it might give us the strength to defend democracy and ourselves when the United Nations or others [refuse to] back us. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee There is no place for weakness. There is no place for wishy-washiness. There is only a place for steadfastness and a place for supreme dedication to the Constitution of the United States, for every word that is in it, and to stand by the spirit with which it speaks. We cannot stand by that spirit and just go along. This would not be possible without the doctrine of preemption. Preemption would allow America to continue democracy without fear of being taken over. This could be the key to prevent another event such as September 11 from happening. Preemption can not bring back the lives that have already been lost, but it can stop the deaths of others. Kari Rudolph, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Who said, The trust and temptation are too great for any one man?" What was the context?
The government was constructed as it is to keep anyone from becoming power crazy and going against the will of the people. In the reading

75

Senator Byrd quoted Madison. Byrd felt, that as a representative of the people, he should not just merely follow the president in his decisions but abide by what he thinks is best and truly try to be a representative of the people. The Senator did not want to follow the President in his Iraq Resolution just because he is the president. If that were to happen the President could abuse his powers. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee When Senator Byrd made that comment, he was referring to the President. He said that because he doesnt want Congress to just go along with whatever the President wants. He wants Congress to talk it out and debate it and decide on what is right. Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Senator Byrd quoted Madison by saying, The trust and temptation are too great for any one man. He was referring to President Bush. Giving one man such a quantity of power is dangerous, because without the input and necessary approval of many, he can make brash decisions out of his own self-interest rather than the interests of the country he presides over. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California Senator Byrd credited Madison with the quote. He is saying that we should support our president, but to entrust him with the complete control of our military forces is too great of a temptation for any one man to handle. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Senator Byrd voiced a great many concerns regarding preemption. Name six concerns that you share with the Senator.
Here are the concerns. What will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will other nations be encouraged to do the same? What will be the cost? How many men and women will be casualties if the country [engages in] a preemptive strike on Iraq? What is the image of the U.S going to be? And what will be the cost in dollars? Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Six concerns for me would be that first we strive for a national consensus like Byrd said. Second, the resolution authorizes the President to determine and use military forces as he will, when he will, how he will, and whenever he will. I have a father and a brother in the military and they

76

signed up to do what needs to be done when our country is in danger. Third, We should utilize the time we have to let the UN marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden. Forth, We should let inspectors go back [with] full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want. Fifth, we should not try to divert their attention to a threat. And Sixth, We are ceding the constitutional authority to declare war, and it is open-ended. Ann Marie Pepper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee It concerns me, mainly, that this doctrine allows one man to have so much power. Revolutionaries fought so many years ago to free themselves of tyrants, yet here we are relinquishing our very own power that was fought and died for. Our interests may be forgotten if one man were to make a wrong decision. What about the ramifications of taking this action? What about our friends abroad? Will they be targeted? Will the tensions between Jews and Muslims in Israel and Palestine only increase; the rift between them grow deeper? The cost for this preemptive strike is enormous and we will bear the brunt of it alone, our taxes will sky rocket and our economy will dip while the deficit grows yet larger. What about the relationship we have with our allies, who will surely suffer and have suffered since we went into Iraq? These people are our friends, and the European Unions opinion should have mattered to us, yet their voices fell upon deaf [American ears.] And the United Nations, an organization that we helped form; we have allowed ourselves to discredit and dishonor by going above its head. If the United States wont comply with the United Nations, why should anyone? Preoccupied with a war abroad, we cannot allow domestic issues to [languish]; issues like medical insurance and unemployment. We have dishonored ourselves by passing a bill that undermines the Republic we fought for, and by allowing a President to act without direct instruction from the Senate. Future applications of the resolution will allow Bush and later Presidents to act openly by giving them a blank check with which to wage war. A resolution this open ended may be justified in the Iraqi case, but future cases may not warrant such use, yet it has been made readily available. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California First, I am concerned that this new doctrine will give the President too much power, allowing him to use the military at a whim.

77

Second, I am concerned that the price of a war that is begun by preemption will cost too much due to the fact that only one country would likely be involved in the conflict. Third, I think that preemption needs to be handled very delicately because of the intricate intelligence issues that are involved and I dont know if it will receive this consideration. Fourth, I am concerned that if the U.S. strikes under the guise of preemption, it will set a precedent that may cause countries like North Korea to attack the U.S. under the same guise. Fifth, I am concerned that by using preemption, the U.S. will alienate itself too much from the rest of the superpowers of the world and make too many enemies that are not needed at a time like this. Last, I am concerned that this doctrine is being pushed through Congress by the Bush administration because Congressional elections are coming up and could cause problems for some of the opposition of the doctrine. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania The first concern that I share with the Senator regarding preemption is what the doctrine defines as preemption. The second is the time it should take to approve the doctrine. I believe that it is a serious issue and should be discussed thoroughly before it is approved. The third concern I have is the lack of support from the international community. A fourth concern is the effect a preemptive strike would have on the rest of the world. A fifth concern is the open-ended characteristics that the doctrine contains. Finally, a sixth concern is the amount of time in which the doctrine will be effective. Michael Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania 1) The amount a preemptive strike would cost the United States. 2) The fact that Congress is being rushed to vote on the resolution. 3) The resolution was just thrown together and will not be unanimous. 4) There is no time limit on the Presidents control of the military forces concerning Iraq or preemptive strikes. 5) Congress is completely handing over its right to declare war. 6) The U.S. will be making a preemptive strike without the support of the United Nations. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

78

Hope that the president will continue to work until he gets a solid collation together; that we are questioning the constitutional authority to declare war; that the people of America are being cheated; that we need to focus on problems in America not ones that are several thousand miles away; that congress is being pressured to do things that arent what the people of this country want and the military forces are being over used. Megan Sheftic, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania I agree with Senator Byrd that representatives should maintain checks and balances on the executive branch and not always grant the president what he wishes. I agree that the Constitution does not allow for preemptive strikes against other nations. We should be concerned with the price of attacks as well. I agree America would be seen as a bully if we allow preemptive strikes in the future. We should have let the United Nations decide whether or not to attack. Lastly, I don't think we should establish a record of preemption that will forever be engraved in our history. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania 1-The time it would take to make the doctrine effective, 2-the amount of time the doctrine would remain effective, 3-a preemptive strike could have devastating effects upon the international community, 4-Americas reputation may be damaged if preemptive assaults begin to be commonplace, 5-the amount of money it would cost to constantly maintain the doctrine and its ideals. Members of Congress should not follow the president simply because they are of the same political party. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania What will be the cost? How many men and women do we expect will become casualties if this country goes to war in a preemptive strike against Iraq? What is going to happen to Israel? What is the image of the United States going to be? Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee (1) It is dangerous for Senators and Representatives to follow the President simply because he is a member of the same political party. (2) Representatives are not adequately connected to the people they represent. (3) Americas reputation in the eyes of other nations will rise or fall depending on how we deal with the idea of preemption and Iraq. (4) It is imperative that we not stray from the Constitution at this important juncture in history.

79

(5) Perhaps the $100 - $200 billion could be better spent elsewhere. (6) The support of the United Nations is critical. We cannot do this alone. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania I agree with Senator Byrds first concern which states that there is no king in the American scheme of things. This means that no one person can rule America or make all the decisions. In America we vote for things and in most situations the majority rules. Another concern of his that I agree with is that there is no place for weakness. I believe that in the United States there is only time for progress and dedication to the country. I also agree with his point that we must always stand behind what we believe and not what a certain party or important figure thinks. We should always have our mind set on what we think and not simply follow the crowd. A fourth concern I agree with is his comment about standing by the Constitution of the United States for every word that is in it. The United States was based on the Constitution; therefore, I believe that we as Americans should always follow what it says. We should stand for what it says we should stand for. Another concern he had was if other nations would be encouraged to also have a preemptive strike. I think this would be something that is very important and should be considered. A last concern Senator Byrd had was how much the preemption strike would cost in dollars. This is very important because we have to figure out how to get this money. Where it would come from? Whose pocket it would come out of? Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee I believe we should follow the president whether he is Democratic or Republican, there is no place for weakness, we should stick with the constitution, we should think for ourselves, we should stand steadfast, and we should live by the spirit of the Constitution. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee 1. That the decision is too much for one man 2. It goes against the Constitution which is the Supreme Law of the Land 3. There will be several thousands of casualties. 4. It will cost too much money. 5. Possible preemptive strikes by terrorists. 6. What will happen with Canada and Mexico? Jon Davies, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

80

1.Other countries may begin their own campaigns for preemption, and preemption could be dangerous in the hands of other countries. 2. Our country has never had to use force to make over the world. 3 .A large number of people may become casualties if the country goes to war in a preemptive strike. 4. Congress is under a lot of pressure to pass the resolution. 5. They would be ceding the constitutional authority to declare war. 6. By voting for this kind of resolution, the people are being cheated. Andrew Lyon, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania What will the image of the United States be? How much will the war cost? How many lives will be lost? Will other countries want to do preemptive strikes? Will there be retaliation? What will it do to national security? Kari Rudolph, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity, and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails?
For all involved, it will be better if America restores order in Iraq, as long as we have been humbled and learned from the lessons from our occupation and liberation of Iraq. If Iraq can become prosperous, and the Iraqis are truly happy, maybe other Middle Eastern cultures will modernize and evolve to meet the needs of their people. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California I think it would definitely be better for the world if we succeed in bringing stability, prosperity, and democracy to Iraq. Since we have taken the lead and stood against what is wrong and evil, it is imperative that we succeed. The world needs to view us as a superpower, not just another country that stands by. If Iraq turns out to be a democratic nation, who knows what good could come of that. There are so many untapped resources in Iraq. I know that they could make a contribution to the world economy eventually. Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee It will be worse for the world either way because it will make America appear as the sole world controller. If we succeed in bringing stability to Iraq, it will make us more likely to launch asinine attacks in the future. If

81

we fail it will perhaps show us that we should mind our own business, but then the Iraqi people are left with a ravaged and destroyed country. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Overall it will be better if America succeeds. For such a powerful nation to bring a third world country to prosperity and give its people more freedom through democracy, would show the world that the country threat affects the entire planet can bring something good to them as well, and that its missions are not something to fear entirely. By showing the world that America can bring good to a country, other nations may be more willing to help in further missions and be more willing to challenge their own corrupt governments. Together the nations could make the lives of everyone better. If America were to fail it would make such an ideal attempt look like too great of a risk. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee It would be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity, and especially democracy to Iraq. First of all, if America were to fail, past and current American efforts to bring stability to Iraq would have been in vain. Also, if we do not establish a stable and democratic Iraq, there is nothing to prevent another dictator from taking over where Saddam Hussein left off. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee It would be best for the world if America graciously bowed out of Iraq having dethroned the ruling menace and shown a war-ravaged people hope. At that point the United Nations the only organization with jurisdiction in the matter could step in and create the best possible government in Iraq without making another America. This would help to increase Americas popularity in the rest of the world, give the United Nations a much-needed opportunity to flex its diplomatic muscles, and give Iraq the government its people deserve. However, it is most important that Iraq not be left in disaster. If that were to happen, the country would revert back to its old defenses, namely Stalin-esque dictators, and the lives lost in battle would have been lost in vain. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania The world would surely be better if America would finally end its unwelcome stay in Iraq. America should not be the body that tries to create a government in Iraq. The United Nations was created for a reason. Lets allow the body to do its job and create a government and economy

82

that will be better for the world instead of allowing America to create what it thinks will be potentially a flourishing government. Is America not currently instituting a regime of its own that they so forcefully felt must be torn down in the past? Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania It will be better because then Iraq would know that we are a world power and not to mess with us because we helped them get back on their feet after their hard time. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee I think [it would be better if we] fail because if we do everything to make Iraq happy than all we have done is made them reliant on the U.S. and it will be bad for us as a nation. We need to go ahead and pull our troops out. They are not listening to us now so what makes [anyone] think they will days, weeks, or months from now. Ann Marie Pepper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Is it American competence that is feared, or is it incompetence?

I think it is a combination of both. America is a competent military power, but often incompetent in its diplomacy. We have an extremely efficient military, which has enormous destructive capability. This military, when used as a last resort in some instances, is good, and would not be feared. However, I believe many in the world fear that Americas incompetence in diplomacy has been made up for in sheer force, which obviously is a terrifying situation to be in. We do not realize nor understand the fear that is struck into people by the amount of power and military efficiency we have at the hands of weak diplomacy. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California It seems that both American competence and incompetence are feared. Those who fear American competence perhaps fear the establishment of democracy or an outreach of American power in the Middle East. Conversely, people who fear American incompetence most likely worry about the disastrous effects that could occur if America was to fail and terror resumed control of Iraq. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee I believe American competence is feared by nations that are not willing to take responsibility for world events. If America competently takes action,

83

these weak countries will look bad for not partaking in the action; thus they do not want to allow America to begin this trend. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania While both American competence and incompetence are feared, I believe incompetence creates more anxiety than competence. News reports always show deaths from friendly fire incidents and there are always problems with the governments we set up in other countries. Foreign countries see these problems and fear we will continue to do the same thing in yet more countries. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania This is a scary time for the rest of the world; a battle is being waged between two apparent evils. On one side, the invasion of Iraq could be successful and yet another part of the world would succumb to the American way. On the other hand, we could fail and leave an already unstable country completely destroyed. However, the fear of American dominance must outweigh all other possible outcomes in both impact and longevity. To become a nation of conquistadors would create long-lasting and far-reaching ramifications. The world would undoubtedly view us as the snobby elitists many already think we are and any hopes of global community and peace would be severely dimmed. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Incompetence is what Americans fear most. In bringing stability, prosperity, and democracy to Iraq brings a great threat to the American people. Many people think that by doing this, the lives of Americans are being risked. This viewed by many is irresponsible of our leaders. People fear that we are getting involved in something that we may not be prepared for. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee America has certainly received a message it never thought would come: we are the enemy. As America tries to help countries around the world, our ideals are constantly being thrust upon groups of people that do not have the same beliefs or the same customs as the people who are trying to help them. This firmly supports the theory that America has placed itself on a pedestal that is far higher than the rest of the world. Incompetence definitely follows this trail that America has blazed. We cannot simply expect the rest of the world to convert to American ways. By not stepping down from the pedestal that was created a few decades ago, America will

84

eventually find itself thrust back against a wall with no where to run but home. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania I would definitely say that some countries fear our competence. We are such a powerful nation by means of military, intelligence, and political power whats not to fear? If a country has something to hide, we will know about it. Countries definitely fear our power, but I think that they also should be comforted by it. Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee What is feared is competence. America is one of the most powerful nations in the history of mankind. We know this, and other countries know this. ...This can make other countries feel edgy. Not only is their culture threatened byAmerican fads, but they may also be wary of Americas political whims. Today America may say that it has the right to defend itself in a certain situation, and the next day it may waiver. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq, under the pressure of attacks, would that be a sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act?
It would not only be a devastatingly irresponsible act, it would also discredit the power of the United States in future endeavors. This act would be irresponsible because if we began this process, we must persevere, stick to our belief in democracy, and follow through until the completion of this act. By pulling out of the country due to increased attacks, America would exhibit a weakness that would inspire the increase of fighting in Bosnia and other countries the United States is involved with. Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania We have toppled a regime. To withdraw from Iraq without establishing order would be an act of cowardice. You do not destroy countries and kill people without leaving them with something better. It would be irresponsible to run in the face of danger. It is important that when the United States acts aggressively they resolve aggressively too, and do not lower the standards because they are afraid of casualties. If we are so afraid of death, we shouldnt have started a war in the first place. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

85

If America were to withdraw hastily from Iraq under the pressure of attacks, it would be a devastatingly irresponsible act. To retreat under the pressure of attack would make America seem cowardly, despite the fact that we could claim victory for simply capturing Saddam Hussein. Foreign voices mocked and belittled America for withdrawing in previous campaigns, so to withdraw from Iraq would most likely have the same effect today. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Although I believe we should withdraw from Iraq immediately, it should not be under the pressure of attacks. It would definitely be a sign of weakness that the United States, which has the strongest military in the world, could not control radicals in Iraq. Levin Hahn, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania The difference between humility and irresponsibility lies in the aftermath of the withdrawal. If the U.N. steps in and begins to shape the fledgling government, America will look to the rest of the world like a Good Samaritan stepping aside at the benefit of the greater good. However, if America pulls out of Iraq and leaves the nation to its own devices we, and the rest of the world, will regret that [our intervention] for generations to come. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania It is not up to America whether or not the act would show humility or irresponsibility, but up to the rest of the world. If America simply pulls out of Iraq and the unstable and potentially volatile government is left as it is, then America will seem to the rest of the world as an irresponsible bully that only picks on the smaller individuals until they are depleted of their resources and then moves on. However, if the United Nations were to step in and help to create a stable and unwavering government, then the actions of America would be looked upon as the humble thing that benefited the rest of the world, and not just themselves. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania First of all, I dont think we would hastily withdraw from Iraq. We are the ones who started the war, so it is our responsibility to help finish and clean up. It we did withdraw after being attacked, I think it would be a sign of humility. We would get the point that the Iraqis dont want us there anymore. I think we would get the hint and get out of there and we

86

wouldnt have to risk any more American lives. Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Such an act would be entirely irresponsible. America cannot throw one corrupt government out only to allow another to come in. Not only would it not truly remedy the security problem that the attack was meant to accomplish, but it would also be a wrong committed on the Iraqi people and the rest of the world who had no real say in the preemptive attack to begin with. America owes something to the people. America can not run when its finger is pricked and allow the lesser equipped Iraqi people to bleed openly. They increased the chaos of the people lives; they must remedy it. It is not a question of humility but finishing what you start. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Greaves Whitney singles out three Democratic presidents in his article. Name them and explain why they are mentioned.
Greaves Whitney singled out John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Bill Clinton. The reason he discussed these three former presidents was because they all had a policy of preemption. He wanted to prove that preemption is not a new concept. Some of our most well-known and well-liked presidents have used preemption, and we survived. It didnt ruin our country. Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Democrat John F. Kennedy proved to be a strong leader is his short time as President. As President he made a case for preemption during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He told Americans, Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security. He told Americans that the greatest danger of all is to do nothing. Kristin Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Franklin Delano Roosevelt is cited in this article for his eloquent defense of preemptive actions. Whitney also quotes Roosevelts metaphor for preemption that has been used time and time again in its defense: When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. John F. Kennedy is mentioned in regards to his preemptive stance during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He warned the citizens

87

of America that it is no longer safe to wait until we are actually fired upon to fight back. He also referred to the passive behavior of Hitlers opponents and cited that passivity as a reason primary reason for World War 2. Lastly, Bill Clinton is mentioned. Clinton argued in favor of preemption during the short-lived, highly effective Operation Desert Fox. He also supported a strong military presence in Iraq and warned that Saddam Hussein had begun compiling weapons of mass destruction again. These three Democrats were chosen because the current Democratic stance is against preemption. These three presidents were chosen for their stark contrast to the Democrats we see today. They take away the idea that preemption is a Republican idea. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania Greaves uses John F. Kennedy to show that during the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy saw the aggressive action as something that needed to be handled before it led to a war. He uses Franklin D. Roosevelt to show that before the Pearl Harbor attack, Roosevelt warned the Nazis that the U. S. would not overlook the buildup of armed forces or weapons. Bill Clinton was used to show in his Operation Desert Fox, that we would keep a strong military in the area and we would use it if we needed to. Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

What is it about America that the writer claims is likely to make it even stronger in the future?
The writer claims that demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor will make America stronger. Americans are a diverse group of people, and in being so they have opened themselves up to many opportunities. Their drive to succeed will undoubtedly allow them to excel and continue to thrive and make money, regardless of how much their spirit is broken by terrorists. Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California Americas fiery tenacity and determination carries over into all areas of life. Our economy will rebound, our foreign investments will flourish, and our involvement overseas will end in success. This will happen because the American people want it to happen and once our resolve is set there is little that can stop us. We are a nation of hard-workers. We know what we want and we work to attain it. Therefore, we will continually thrive as a nation inspiring jealousy in some lands and motivation to others. Lindsay Blazin, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

88

I think the fact that we are willing to stand against what is wrong and to do something about it definitely makes us stronger. It shows that we are a nation of compassion and a nation of our word. We dont just say we are going to take action, we do. This proves to other nations that they shouldnt mess with us because we arent afraid to take action. Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee The determination of the American people will lead it into an even more prosperous future. Because Americans work so hard at everything they do, their economy seems to flourish at home and over seas. If all the nations of the world showed as much determination as the United States, then the global economy would also improve. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

89

90

Participants

Somerset High School, Somerset, Pennsylvania Teacher: Dr. William Simmons

Andrew Lyon Lindsay Blazin Levi Hahn Stephen Barbera Derrek Lyons Michael Barbera Lorelle Marker

Megan Sheftic Jon Davies Megan Mayak

Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee Teacher: Wanda Allen

Kimberly Taylor Heather King Mandy Green Kyla Carter Kaitlin Cooper Krista Osment Ann Marie Pepper Lindsey Williams Samantha Coppola Kari Rudolph

La Costa Canyon High School Carlsbad, California Single Entry

Amanda Beck
91

92

More About the Harry Singer Foundation

The Harry Singer Foundation is a national non-profit 501(c) 3 private operating foundation (IRC: 4942 j 3) located in Carmel, California whose purpose is to promote responsibility and involve people more fully in public policy and their communities. It was founded in 1987. It actively conducts programs, and is not a grant-making foundation. The Foundation invites participants of all ages and countries to participate in its programs but has been concentrating on young people because they are open and eager to learn, are not saddled with a myriad of other social responsibilities, (like raising a family and making their own living), and they will be around the longest and therefore have the best opportunity to make their projects work. They are ideal experimenters because time is on their side. Participation on our programs operating our programs on the history in light of the Internet's read this information www.singerfoundation.org. is through the Internet. We have been Internet since the fall of 1994ancient growth since those early days. You may and view our programs at

93

We bring people together to network at our headquarters in Carmel, California. When participants come up with ideas, HSF provides the opportunity to put to the test, those ideas that garner the most enthusiastic response. We do this via Pilot Projects and interacting with grant-making entities and far-sighted businesses. Most businesses rightly have more than altruistic motives. They are concerned about maintaining a stable and growth-oriented economy as well as finding responsible future employees. Our projects inadvertently foster these aims as well as philanthropic goals. Although HSF is an educational foundation it realizes it is not enough to think, write and talk about problems. HSF shows what ordinary people are capable of achieving. The objective is to find out what works within a desired framework. We know a pilot project has been successfully launched when it attracts enthusiastic volunteers that we call Champions. Those familiar with the Suzuki method of teaching music will understand when we analogize to the child begging the mother to turn over the childsized violin she is playing. Champions are those whose enthusiasm leads them to volunteer to take over a pilot project that strikes their fancy. In the process they release their own unique pent up creativity while the Foundation continues to support them in their efforts to expand the project. Steve Platt, the Champion of Singer Kids4Kids is one example. We also offer materials online, free of charge, which can be printed and used in the classroom or for individual education or research. The Workbook section of the HSF web site features data to encourage logical thinking and attention to the unintended consequences that often accompany government or personal solutions to perceived problems. HSF believes that society has encouraged technology and management while neglecting principles. We need to consider not only can we do, but should we do. To that end you will find an introduction to the seldom taught subject of logic in this section along with frequently updated ethical dilemmas. The Harry Singer Foundation mission is to prepare participants for a future where there may be less government and a weaker safety net. Such a future would require greater individual character, responsibility and knowledge. There may be a need for responsible people able to care for themselves and their less fortunate neighbors.

94

Before one can either reflect or help others, one must survive. HSF has archived the thoughts of teens over a twenty year period in the Teens Speak Out and the Archived by State forums as well as in the published books that resulted from 41 of the 46 essay contests it conducted between 1988 and 2007. Although many of these teen authors now are adults with children of their own, their reflections are relevant to today's youth who must learn to make successful personal and social choices regarding their own ideology and their careers. They too must withstand the peer pressure of gangs, violence, irresponsible sex and addictive substances. People change but the social issues remain. We invite you to explore our web site; www.singerfoundation.org. We look forward to your comments and participation and will be happy to provide additional information and respond to questions. The Harry Singer Foundation Board of Directors has promoted programs that provide information and teach people how to think but not what to think until they have looked at more than one side of any issue. Program participants are expected to form their own opinions after research and analysis. Advisory Board members are championing programs that often take participants into their communities to interact outside an academic setting. We invite you to browse our pilot projects and hope that you may be moved to champion one of these projects in your own community. Together we believe we can make the United States, and the world, a stronger and better place to live, for this generation and generations to come.

95