-
Steady casualties in Iraq are bad enough. We don't need the additional casualty of the pre-emption doctrine. Pre-emption seems destined to become another war casualty now that we know that our prewar intelligence on Iraq was faulty. Maybe we just can't know what's going on in countries where we most need to know the frightening things they're planning. Regardless, from now on, Americans will be skeptical of bold US action based on such inside information. The public's default position will go from instinctive support--'Let's back the president'--to deep doubt--'There they go again.'
But before we write pre-emption's obituary, I echo that great American philosopher Gene Autry when he said, 'Whoa, big boy!' Despite the limits of intelligence, pre-emption must live on to guide US security policy. Pre-9/11, we weren't so keenly aware of dedicated fanatics bent on destroying Americans. Well, now we know. Once the world's most vile weapons get in the hands of the world's most vile people, they put thousands, perhaps millions of Americans at high risk.
The doctrines of containment and deterrence won't work with them. These Cold War ideas presume that our enemy had rationality and a desire for self-preservation. Well, our enemies today sure don't. So pre-emption must prevail, more out of a necessity than a choice. We simply cannot wait to react until terrorist cells and vile regimes actually launch mass weapons against us. We must act before they do.
Of course, pre-emption is a lot more controversial than previous US doctrines. The problems for implementing pre-emption were foreseen by none other than Machiavelli. He compared cool statecraft with medical treatment: The more glaring the any disease, the more obvious its diagnosis but the more difficult its treatment. By the time a doctor is certain that a patient has lung cancer, the time for effective treatment probably has passed. The best presidents, like the best doctors, act when their evidence is still inconclusive. Otherwise, the window for effective action passes. If pre-emption does become another war casualty, I fear far more serious casualties before we rid civilization of the scourge of terrorism. And sadly, that's not about to happen anytime soon.
Reader Seraphiel provides "shorter Ken Adelman":
-
We must continue the doctrine of pre-emption precisely because it was such a dramatic failure.