Sunday, August 01, 2004

Preemptive War

I'm hearing more and more (or should that be Moore and Moore?) the last week or so about the "Bush Administration's policy of preemptive war." Balderdash!

The importance of controlling the vocabulary or linguistic wrangling of an argument in the public arena has been demonstrated time and time again. If you control the language of the debate, you control the debate. Listen to the tone the leftists use when they talk about President Bush's "preemptive wars." Is a preemptive strike a bad thing? Hardly. Can a strike be preemptive and still be the perfectly just and reasonable thing to do? Absolutely. But they do everything they can to make "preemptive" equal to "unjustified."

Let's pretend that I'm walking the street tomorrow and I run across you on the sidewalk. For some reason, you've decided you dislike me immensely (You have a pet peeve for bad blogging or something) and that you want to fight me. You block my path, blade you body to me, curl your fists, and begin to drop that right shoulder down to throw the most incredibly telegraphed punch of all time, the classic roundhouse. What would I do? I'd hit you one time ... fast and hard... before you could hit me. To do anything else would be completely stupid on my part.

The same applies to our current foreign policy debate. The Klinton administration was not preemptive at all when it came to terrorism ... and we got a big black eye from four planes and nine dirty arabs. President Bush made it clear in the months following the attack on our country on September 11, 2001 that we are now living in a different world, regulated by different rules. With us or against us. President Bush told us that the times ahead of us would be hard, but that we would not, must not, falter. President Bush promised that we would take the fight to the terrorists, and we've done that. When you hear someone from the left trying to bend this debate their way; or when you hear someone buying into it, take the time to engage them in a conversation and set the record straight.

Did Iraq draw first blood this time around? Perhaps not. But to stand around and wait for that big telegraphed roundhouse punch would have been asinine.

1 Comments:

At August 29, 2004 4:41 PM, Anonymous said...

Personally I think that if Iraq was not invaded they would have continued on the path to developing a nuclear program. So is this a preemptive strike? Yes. I would like to remind the students of history about the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Pushing for "A Peace in our Time". He refused to acknowledge the mounting German Army favoring an isolationist standpoint over confrontation. Yes, this war has cost the lives of many brave soldiers and many innocent Iraqis, but how many would have died if we chose to ignore the problem unti we had no other option. Just my two cents. Thats all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Page Stats by Dark Counter