College Publisher Test Site

"The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy -whether a state or non-state actor - to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends." This is the type of language used in the National Security Strategy of the United States published in June 2002 by The White House.

The Bush administration believed in what is called a pre-emptive military strategy, but this strategy can be extremely dangerous for the United States and our allies abroad. For this reason President Barack Obama has essentially removed this strategy from practice but for the safety of the country, we need to make sure this idea is never practiced again.

According to an extensive report published in 2003 by the Congressional Research Service, with information gathered from the Library of Congress, "the historical record indicates that the United States has never engaged in a preemptive military attack, as traditionally defined, against another nation. Only once has the United States ever unilaterally attacked another nation militarily prior to first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked."

When this report was published, the attack they were referring to was the Spanish-American War of 1898. The United States engaged in military action to force Spain to grant Cuba its political independence. Spain declined to follow the United States' orders of removing troops out of Cuba and both countries then passed a declaration of war against the other. Military history regarding pre-emptive strikes has certainly changed since this report was published, following the March 20, 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Based on faulty intelligence, the United States invaded Iraq in what is the biggest example against a pre-emptive military strategy. A pre-emptive military strategy in the United States set is dangerous for many reasons. It sets a bad precedent for our foes and allies alike, leaves the nation at risk of an administration using security as an excuse for war and goes against the idea that America is a beacon of light, or the voice of freedom for the world.

If the United States strongly believed in a pre-emptive military strike against enemies capable of harming the country, they would have been attacking 12 nations in 2003 along with Iraq. According to the U.S. State Department, there were 12 nations that had nuclear weapons programs, 13 that had biological weapons programs, 16 that had programs for chemical weapons and 28 that had more or less the capability of a ballistic missile. This would set a terrible precedent for the world. When viewing the strategy from this perspective, it almost appears laughable. If every country in the world launched a pre-emptive attack against a perceived enemy, we would never stop fighting.

The United States "will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively." This is yet another stunning quote from the National Security Strategy of the U.S. in '02. Imagine if an administration took office with a vendetta against a specific country that they wanted to go to war against. Imagine if they did everything in their power to start a war against that country. Without directly accusing the Bush administration of fabricating the security risk that Iraq posed, we can all look back knowing our nation's first pre-emptive war was based on questionable intelligence.

When asked about his presentation to the United Nations where he sold the war to the world, Colin Powell told ABC News, "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up." Taking Powell at his word, it would appear the United States started a war based on intelligence they firmly believed was credible, but what if an administration took office and deliberately fabricated intelligence to push an agenda? When you believe in a pre-emptive military strategy, this scenario is even more dangerous.

Even more than setting a bad precedent though, or allowing a dangerous administration to start an unprecedented war, is the idea that America has and always will stand tall as the voice of freedom for the entire world. Doesn't a pre-emptive military strategy make America look more like a military heavyweight than the best example for democracy we have ever known? You don't have to believe that all wars can be prevented to believe America should not be the country to start them. If faulty intelligence led us to a pre-emptive war against a country in the midst of a civil war, perhaps this should be a lesson to return to our roots as a defender of freedom, and a leader by example. Other countries are watching our every move, why not show them how great freedom can be?

Article Tools