August 8, 2004Why Pre-emptive War is a Divisive Campaign IssueA good friend who describes himself as a strong conservative declares he "will never vote for that "s-o-b Kerry" -- or Bush "who is responsible for the deaths of our soldiers in Iraq." He says he will vote for Nader. Universal suffrage via secret ballot is a cherished right of Americans. However, votes for third-party candidates usually are wasted -- or skew the election to an otherwise loser. Be careful what you wish for, it might come true. My friend is upset about American soldiers being killed for a cause unclear. As of this writing, 922 brave U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. Indeed, this is cause for profound sorrow. If and when that statistic reaches a symbolic thousand, media sharks will circle in blood frenzy. As bad as that toll would be, it should be compared to combat deaths the past ten wars:
The three wars fought on American soil can be said to be "defensive" to save our own democracy. All other wars have been fought on foreign soil to preserve democracy for friends -- or to prevent the spread of anti-democratic forces. We have acquired no land abroad other than, occasionally, space to bury our combat dead. A common complaint by peace doves is: "Why are we fighting Iraq? It did not attack us!" This assumption is debatable if one assumes Iraq in recent years had not been participating in terrorism one way or another. We fought two world wars -- on behalf of our democratic friends -- against bloody German dictators when they had not attacked us. We went to war against totalitarian Spain, Korea and Vietnam when they had not attacked us. Totalitarian government has been the dominant form of society for 10,000 years. Constitutional democracy was invented by American genius just 209 years ago. Perhaps there is something in human nature that seeks a Supreme Leader -- some one whom will take charge in return for obedience and sacrifice of individuality The larger purpose of life can be said to have been at stake when President Wilson took us into the First World War. When President Roosevelt took us into World War II. When President Truman took us into war against North Korea. When President Kennedy took us into war against North Vietnam. Certainly terrorists attacked the United States piecemeal for a decade until they went too far on 9/11/01. That was a crime more horrendous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. President Franklin Roosevelt correctly perceived the latter as part of a worldwide conspiracy against democracy. We shudder to think what kind of world we would be in today if the United States in the past had encased itself in a self-interest cocoon One of the most important issues in the presidential campaign is Bush’s "pre-emption" policy. Are countries that have no means or provocation to harm the U.S. -- but harbor foreign agents engaged in mass murder against Americans -- exempt from U.S. defense efforts? Read this as Iraq. And let us not forget the other "axis of evil" partners – Iran and North Korea -- or overlook Syria. Bush outlined the 21st Century reality in his National Security Strategy Policy of Sept. 2002: "As a matter or common sense and self-defense, America will act against emerging threats before they are fully formed -- even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack." Kerry has flip-flopped unblushingly on the issue. Two weeks after Bush enunciated his pre-emption strategy, Kerry voted for the war against Iraq. In a speech at Georgetown University a year later, Kerry said Bush "relies unwisely on the threat of military pre-emption against terrorist organizations." A month ago, Kerry declared in a stump speech: "Am I prepared as president to go get terrorist organizations before they get us, and we have sufficient intelligence? You bet I am!" Now that we have agreed pre-emption is valid, all we have to quibble about is the time, place and French approval. Lindsey Williams is a Sun columnist who can be contacted at linwms@lindseywilliams.org |