Preemptive War

One of the more controversial aspects of the President's recently released strategy document is preemptive war. The linked article makes the point that the Iraq War was not actually preemptive. I'd agree with the assessment that it was a carry over from the First Gulf War and years of sanctions.

Putting that aside, do you believe in preemptive war? As for me, I support having it as part of our national strategy against potential threats.

What really puzzled me were these quotes below from Harlan Ullman, especially the second paragraph. At some point I'd like to see some of these grand think tank strategists put their money where their mouth is and tell us precisely how we can deter an Iran, for example.

Now, I have no doubt Harlan Ullman has, in a sense, probably written volumes on or about it. But why am I thinking that if we sent Mr. Ullman over to Iran, all we'd get is a few years waiting until we discovered that, oops, guess what? Iran has the bomb.

Thinking something is one thing ... doing it is another. In the face of the lies and manipulations to which Iran has already admitted, I find it frightening naive when scholars like Mr. Ullman tell us there is another way. I wonder, how many will we have to try in the name of good thinking, before the game is lost?

Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to preemption. "Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in every body's face," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error."

A military attack against Iran, for instance, could be "foolish," Ullman said, and it would be better to seek other ways to influence its behavior. "I think most states are deterrable."

Comments

[Rick]

War should always be the last resort for any situation but the occassional pre-emptive strike is necessary. Why go to war because some dictator is killing his own population? We stood by while millions were slaughtered in SE Asia and in Africa and it's obvviouds that GB should do what Carter and Clinton did in those places. Even if Sodamn Insane still had his lethal weapons (the left thinks WMD means big ass nukes) could they reach here? Not yet. Same story w/ Iran, they can't reach me so let their neighbors show some guts for a change. Want a preemptive war on someone dangerous? Let's bomb Columbia and give it to the Mexicans after we annex Mexico.