I love pre-emptive strikes---those by the U.S. against a mortal threat.
Iraq was not a mortal threat and the proof was the posture of her neighbors.
At one time, the Soviets were a mortal threat. They had devastating stuff pointed at us needing only the double key-turn. What if we had struck preemptively? Those of us who survived would be cutting logs with stone tools.
We could preemptively strike North Korea and Iran right now and justify it as strongly as we did Iraq.
I fear the preemptive strike theory will cause us more long-term harm than good.
tvoivozhd---throughout our history we have been the subject of many pre-emptive strikes---Bunker Hill, War of1812, Fort McHenry, General Roth or Ross with 15,000 well-trained, well-armed Redcoats attacking Andrew Jackson's hastily thrown together, hastily-trained 4000 men in New Orleans , Pearl Harbor, Twin Towers (hate that 9/ll term). We successfully employed some of our own, most notably against the Barbary Pirates, Benedict Arnold against Fort Ticonderoga, George Washington against Yorktown, (crucially aided by the DeGrasse French fleet), the Omaha Beach invasion.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.