I found myself reflecting on the whole "preemption" deal, as it pertains to the fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Although the term preemption deals with land purchasing or federal vs. state land grabs, and has hints toward imperialism or colonialism. In short it has a negative connotation, so I am not sure that it is the proper word to use to describe the current admin's plans, but for lack of a better word, let's use it.
In Afghanistan, most agree that it was a necessary war or at least a warranted reaction. In less politically correct days, a atomic bomb would have been a viable option, incurring a sizable and acceptable amount of casualties. But in this case it was decided to overthrow and then occupy that country, and then install an US friendly government. Although I happen to agree with the decisions, some may point to that as a form of imperialism and maybe so. But the decision to install an US friendly government, I consider a preemptive (rather preventative) measure. I think most would agree that simply cleaning up the Taliban and leaving would just lead to another infestation.
In Iraq, preemption was taken up a notch or two - agree or not, the decision does give the US a logistic and an intelligence advantage.
On the home front, all kinds of measures, most have been the opposite of convenient, some would argue that some of the measures are encroaching on our liberties, have been taken to prevent terror strikes. Three years seems a reasonable preliminary measure of ongoing success or lack thereof.
It seems to me anyway, that prevention and preemption are inseparable terms on all fronts in this fight.
Although the term preemption deals with land purchasing or federal vs. state land grabs, and has hints toward imperialism or colonialism. In short it has a negative connotation, so I am not sure that it is the proper word to use to describe the current admin's plans, but for lack of a better word, let's use it.
In Afghanistan, most agree that it was a necessary war or at least a warranted reaction. In less politically correct days, a atomic bomb would have been a viable option, incurring a sizable and acceptable amount of casualties. But in this case it was decided to overthrow and then occupy that country, and then install an US friendly government. Although I happen to agree with the decisions, some may point to that as a form of imperialism and maybe so. But the decision to install an US friendly government, I consider a preemptive (rather preventative) measure. I think most would agree that simply cleaning up the Taliban and leaving would just lead to another infestation.
In Iraq, preemption was taken up a notch or two - agree or not, the decision does give the US a logistic and an intelligence advantage.
On the home front, all kinds of measures, most have been the opposite of convenient, some would argue that some of the measures are encroaching on our liberties, have been taken to prevent terror strikes. Three years seems a reasonable preliminary measure of ongoing success or lack thereof.
It seems to me anyway, that prevention and preemption are inseparable terms on all fronts in this fight.
