Pre-emptive war sets dangerous policy precedent

Frontiersman editorial board

At a time when focus and consistency are more critical than ever, U.S. foreign policy seems more schizophrenic than ever. The Bush administration wants to add Sadam Hussein's "regime" to the current war on terrorism, based largely upon the notion that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, is bent upon building more, and that he'll use them -- indeed, he already has used chemical weapons on people in his own country.

Bush has found that building support for this move is more difficult than it was to build support to dismantle Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization. While the international mood about waging war on Iraq is downright cold, even the mood in the U.S. is, at best, tepid. One problem is that the principal of waging preemptive war is a precedent that seems to fly in the face of long-standing American principals. We do not put people in jail because they might commit a crime -- even if we believe they are likely to commit a crime. We have not been in the habit of waging wars to prevent other nations from threatening our "national interests" at some point in the future.

There are good arguments, it would seem, to take a proactive approach to this kind of foreign policy. If the rest of the world would have stood up sooner, some people say, Hitler would never have been able to do what he did. It's hard to argue in favor of letting Adolf Hitler slide. With hindsight as a guide, diplomacy, one would hope, would always win out over violence, and great wars would always be prevented by quick and determined resolve to nip them in the bud.

Unfortunately, when you seek to solve potential problems by force, you must be right. You can't be pretty sure you're right. You can't determine that war is worth the risk that you might be wrong. As much as we'd like to be able to do that in an effort to regain our sense of security, it simply isn't prudent -- much of the rest of the world, even our allies, tell us so. No amount of military action can guarantee that terror will remain at bay. We have been largely successful in our efforts in Afghanistan, but most Americans do not feel safer than they did on Sept. 12, 2001.

As difficult as it might be, it may be wise for the U.S. to work with the international community in regard to Iraq. The time may come when force is unavoidable, but we should first be sure of why we are choosing that option, and we should also be sure about what we're going to get in the aftermath.