Pre-Emption as Political Strategy

One of my favority blogs, Clear Commentary, carried a post last week called Ron Paul & the Danger of Non-Intervention, in which he describes presidential candidate Ron Paul's approach to foriegn policy as both dangerous to the world and dangerous to U.S. interests worldwide:

From an ideological perspective, Paul's paradigm trivializes the exportation of American values of freedom and the rule of law by arguing they're tantamount to American imperialism. That's a recipe for brazen inaction not because Paul disdains freedom but because he is so studiously reticent to introduce it to others, as though we were imposing totalitarianism.

His argument might have more credibility in a Cold War environment where geopolitical forces were well-defined and checks and balances kept opponents on guard and wary of provoking the opponent. Such is clearly not the case today, because we know that al-Qaeda is operating in about 70 countries worldwide, most conspicuously in Iraq.

Add to that bin Laden's pledge to destroy America and Iranian president Ahmadinejad's to "wipe Israel off the map," and Mr. Paul's policy of non-interventionism is not merely naive and daft, it's downright lethal.

Over the weekend, in response to a comment regarding the the references to pre-emptive military action in the war on terror. There are clearly times when pre-emptive military action, while deigned by the "civilized" world as imperilistic, is not only apt, but may even be necessary to prevent bloodshed on a wider scale. Obviously, despite the deaths to American soldiers and civilians, it is far better to take the fight to terrorists on their home soil than on ours. In a
folloow-up post, Philip Mella writes:

The argument for studied inaction, or "non-intervention," as the Paulites prefer to call it, is only credible in a Cold War environment and, as President Reagan demonstrated, it's often the case that the mere threat of military hegemony is sufficient to topple a putative superpower such as the Soviet Union.


Therefore, this writer's assertions notwithstanding, pre-emption is, in fact, an effective strategy, and history clarifies that employing it in a timely manner can save lives and preserve resources, if leaders have political will and understanding of what's at stake.

War is not pretty and war is not desired, especially by those who have to the killing and the dying, but soemtimes it is necessary and not always when attacked. Sometimes war, in the advance of freedom around the world, must be undertaken pre-emptively. Simply burying our head in the sand and hoping the Islamic terrorists will go away and stop bothering us is not only naive, but suicidal.

Again, it is better to fight in the streets of Baghdad than the streets of New York.