the smedley log - suburban scrawl

The dogma of “preemption”

A man approaches you in an alleyway. He pulls a knife as he comes closer. As he continues toward you, he says he’s going to kill you. There’s nobody else around, but you have an aluminum bat under your coat. You produce the bat from underneath your coat as he approaches. Before his initial knifestroke can reach you, you strike him with the bat. You continue to do so until he’s disabled.

What has happened here? In modern international terms, you’ve preempted an attack.

Is the situation any different if he’s on the other side of the street? Say he’s still walking along with a knife, but now he’s 50 feet away. He’s shouting threats in your direction, but he isn’t actually approaching you. You can reasonably discern that he’s capable of making good on his threat (should he ever decide to actually approach you). Sensing a growing threat, you lumber across the street and start pummeling him with your baseball bat.

What has happened here? Well, if you’re still labeling your actions “preemptive”, we’ve struck at the heart of why so many people are confused about recent U.S. security policy. Preemption requires an imminent threat. The man carrying a knife 50 feet away and making no moves in your direction is, under most definitions, not an imminent threat. However, he was making threats, so you might be able to make the case that what you did was preventive. But it wasn’t preemptive.

Over the past three years the quarrel has endured over the legality of invading Iraq. (For the record, I initially supported the invasion, but never based on the so-called preemptive war argument.) As so often happens, I’ve been more annoyed by what’s being passed off as preemptive war, than by the actual idea of it. Preemptive war, in its true sense, is not generally frowned upon by the international community. Preventive war, on the other hand, has been judged more harshly.

The linguistics behind this argument are part of what hinders true debate on the issue. I don’t want to start drawing analogies that will anger the more extreme supporters of the ever more nebulous war on terror, but suffice it to say, any reasonably intelligent despot could argue quite effectively for our current brand of “preemption” and use it as a cover for doing truly horrible things.

But that’s not what irks me most about this situation. What bothers me most profoundly, beyond the fairly naked implication that any nation with the military might could follow suit, is that the war on terror has been launched, and defended in many circles, as a function of the Bush presidency. That’s to say many of its supporters plainly state George Bush’s leadership as one of the conditions for their support. Many of the same people also claim that they would never trust certain Democrats to conduct the same strategies responsibly.

This is, in a word, stupid.

Do they realistically believe that a Democrat will never again occupy the White House? -or that Democrats will never again seize control of Congress? Do they not grasp that the people they trust the least will eventually have access to the same path blazed so unapologetically by this president? (A moot argument to people like me, who tend not to trust either institutional party, but an interesting one for those who wear partisan blinders.)

What is being missed by so many frigthened “security” moms (and dads) out there is the simple fact that we in the United States of America have a system. It’s like a good college sports team. The ones that enjoy the long term success are the ones based on a good system, not on the personalities or unique talents of one or two star players. That’s been the key to sustained success for most of our nation’s existence. If we simply turn it into a cult of personality (this could refer to a politician, a party, whatever), it bodes poorly for our long term survival. And if we proceed to indignantly anger the few moderate allies we have left, who’s to say we won’t one day find ourselves on the short end of the military measuring stick?

Have we missed the lessons of history? Do we believe our empire is not susceptible to the sort of fall experienced by the Greeks or the Romans?

(Here’s a clue: Whatever you believe, clear logic dictates that the answer to each question is the same.)

Excellent analysis. I like the sports analogy. I think there is a cult of personality thing happening (more and more as politicians play down their party affilations during election season). More people (on both sides of the political fence) are relying too much on the personal vibe, “their gut” when selecting their leaders.

And you are absolutely correct, a good test before giving more power to the president would be to ask, “would I want the other guy to have the same powers.”

but in Florida, you can shoot another person, in broad daylight for simply feeling threatened, they don’t even have to be shouting at you. just you feeling that they are threatening. that’s how i understand that new law, please correct me if i’m wrong.

Well, it kind of makes sense if you consider who the governor is… or maybe that’s just coincidence.

Hmmm, reminds me of a lot of the premise for some (bad) sci-fi productions. An alien race attempts to wipe out the human race because (dun-dun-dunnnn) they are too uppity, primitive, violent and present a future threat. Of course, since it is US we believe that the antagonistic invaders deserve to die and we (of course) soundly defeat them because we are ready to die for our liberty, beliefs and ultimately, our survival as a race. Sounds quite familiar, doesnt it?

Interesting thought. Especially because it’s a scenario that could draw parallels in so many different directions.

As a communications junkie, I tend to focus on the diplomatic aspects of the situation. I worry what could happen when some entity not named the United States not only adopts a similar strategy, but also develops the capacity to carry it out against us.

I just wish more people would take seriously the possibility that this sort of strategic departure warrants a real discussion rather than an ideological branding.

I agree – like racial profiling is OK when it’s “them” being profiled. And prayer in school is ok as long as its “our” prayer (jews, muslims, buddhists, atheists, … need not dissent).

When people are not willing to flip the argument so that it works when you are on either side of it, that makes the argument immediately suspect.

Actually, one of my fave musicals is “Into the Woods” where all the qualities that were “virtues” in Act 1 and made the characters “heroes” were flaws with respect to the Act 2 situation (Act 1 based on a combination of fairy tales in children’s literature). I really like the concept of being able to look at something so established from such a different angle

[…] As I wrote way back in March, I think governmental principles have to be universally applicable, or at least not conditioned on which party is in power. In this case, even more so, because I don’t trust any one man (or secret group of men) to make decisions about when and where to suspend basic constitutional principles like Habeas Corpus, especially within our own borders. […]