teens speak out on war: preemption or prevention? how governments have prevented war in the past and...

8/8/2019 Teens Speak Out on War: Preemption or Prevention? How Governments Have Prevented War in the Past and What

1/113


2/113

Teens Speak Out On War:

Preemption Or Prevention?

How Governments Have Prevented War

In The Past and What Their ApproachShould Be In The Future


3/113


4/113

Student Excerpts from a 2004

Harry Singer Foundation NationalEssay Contest

Teens Speak Out On War:

Preemption or Prevention Role

How Governments Have Prevented War in the Past

and What Their Approach Should Be in the Future

Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan, Editor

Wellington Publications

W-P Carmel, California


5/113

The non-partisan Harry Singer Foundation was established in 1988 to promote greater individual participation in government and

involvement in social issues. The views expressed here are those of

the various students who chose to enter our essay contest and do not

necessarily represent the views of the board members and staff of the

Foundation.

First Printing

Copyright 2008 by Wellington Publications

Printed in USA

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or

utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or by any information storage

and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher.

Inquiries should be addressed to Wellington Publications P.O. Box

223159 Carmel, California 93922

ISBN: 978-0-915915-42-2


6/113

Editor's Note:

In most cases, students gave the Foundation citations for the materialthat was quoted in their papers. Because of space constraints, we

generally did not include those citations here. Also, in rare instances,

material was quoted by students and incorporated in their paperswithout giving proper credit. We apologize, but must disclaimresponsibility as we cannot always tell when a student is quoting

from another writer unless quotation marks are used. This is purely

an educational exercise.


7/113


8/113

Who is Harry Singer?

Most people have never heard of Harry Singer. He wasn't a famous

politician, a philanthropic industrialist, a creative artist, a martyred preacher or a great inventor-humanitarian. Harry Singer was a

common man.

Harry was an immigrant. He came to this country in 1912 from a smallvillage in Russia. He settled in Chelsea, Massachusetts where with his wife

and five children he ran a tiny neighborhood grocery store.

Harry could have been your uncle, your brother-in-law, your nextdoor neighbor. He had no lust for power, no great ambitions. He was

just a good, kind, quiet man with a keen sense of justice who wouldjump in when he felt something was wrong. Harry was an egalitarian

who showed respect for all men and who was respected in return.

It is fitting that a foundation dedicated to encouraging the common

man's participation in public policy decisions should be named after

Harry. For it is to the Harry Singers of a new generation that we must

look if we are to keep America competitive and strong in the worldof the twenty-first century.

The Harry Singer Foundation came into being because thedescendants of the humble egalitarian believe today what President

Woodrow Wilson said back in 1912:

i


9/113

"Every country is renewed out of the unknown ranks and not out

of the ranks of those already famous and powerful and in

control."

About The Harry Singer Foundation (HSF)

The Harry Singer Foundation is a non-profit 501(c) 3 private

operating foundation (IRC: 4942 j 3) located in Carmel, California

whose purpose is to promote responsibility and involve people more

fully in public policy and their communities. It was founded in 1987.It actively conducts programs, and is not a grant-making foundation.

The founders believe many people base their decisions on erroneous

or too little factual information about public policy, private andpublic programs, and the effort and goodwill of their fellow citizens.

The Harry Singer Foundation has developed programs to help correct

this situation, and would like to join with you in helping to make this

nation a stronger and better place to live and grow for this generation

and generations of Americans to come.

The Foundation's focus is on the too often forgotten average citizen.

We are not consciously looking to attract future leaders; we feel that

job is being handled adequately by a variety of existing foundations.Our goal is to minimize the polarization we see developing in thiscountry between the doers and those done to the rulers and the

ruled. We strive to make everyone feel that their thoughts and ideas

count; to let them know that they are listened to and that they matter.

We want our fellow citizens to understand that a person doesn't haveto be brilliant or a great communicator in order to make a difference

in America. A person does

have to care and does have to participate.

Action

It is not enough to think, write and talk about the problemswe must

show by active example what people are capable of achieving. The

goal is to find out what works within a desired framework. When

participants learn how to choose what to do without sacrificing the

ii


10/113

best American ideals to expediency, the Foundation will provide theopportunity to put some of their ideal choices to the test.

The Foundation first concentrated on young people because they are

open and eager to learn, are not saddled with a myriad of other socialresponsibilities (like raising a family and making their own living)and they will be around the longest and therefore have the best

opportunity to make their projects work. They are ideal

experimenters because time is on their side.

Pilot Projects

We bring people together to network at our headquarters in Carmel,

California. When participants come up with ideas, HSF provides theopportunity to put to the test, those ideas that garner the most

enthusiastic response. We do this via pilot projects and interactingwith grant-making entities as well as far-sighted businesses. Most

businesses rightly have more than altruistic motives. Their main

concerns are about maintaining a stable and growth-oriented

economy and finding responsible employees. As a side benefit, many

of our projects foster these, as well as purely altruistic goals.

We know a pilot project has been successfully launched when it

attracts enthusiastic volunteers that we call Champions. Champions

are drawn to a specific pilot project because they share its objectives.

Therefore they are eager to jump at the opportunity to bringaspirations to fruition by adding their own unique approach to

managing and expanding the project without having to worry about

funding. Of course HSF continues to provide guidance in addition tomonetary support. Singer Kids 4 Kids was once a pilot project and

Transition to Teaching was a pilot project renamed and adopted by

the state of California and adapted to use in securing science and

math mentors for Californias classrooms.

The HSF Mission

The Harry Singer Foundation mission is to prepare participants for a

future where there may be less government and a weaker safety net.

iii


11/113

Such a future would require greater individual character,responsibility and knowledge. There may be a need for responsible

people able to care for themselves and their less fortunate neighbors.

The Foundation offers materials online, free of charge, which can be printed and used in the classroom or for individual education or

research. The Workbook section of the HSF web site features data to

encourage logical thinking and attention to the unintended

consequences that often accompany government or personalsolutions to perceived problems. HSF believes that society has

encouraged technology and management while neglecting principles.

We need to consider not only can we do, but should we do. To that

end you will find an introduction to the seldom taught subject of

logic in this section along with frequently updated ethical dilemmas.

Before one can either reflect or help others, one must survive. HSFhas archived the thoughts of teens over a twenty year period in the

Teens Speak Out and the Archived by State forums as well as in the

published books that resulted from 41 of the 46 essay contests the

Foundation conducted between 1988 and 2007. Although many of

these teen authors now are adults with children of their own, theirreflections are relevant to today's youth who must learn to make

successful personal and social choices regarding their own ideology

and careers. They too must withstand the peer pressure of gangs,

violence, irresponsible sex and addictive substances. People change

but the social issues remain.

The HSF Mission 1988-2008

The following article was written in 1995 by Amy Davidson, a free

lance writer and linguistics student at the University of California at

Berkeley at the time. This is the result of her observation of the Harry

Singer Foundation during winter break her sophomore year.

Thought, Words and Action

One wouldn't think of Carmel, California, a small coastal town south

of Monterey, as a hotbed for community action. However, nestled

iv


12/113

between the Cypress trees and the crashing surf, the small group ofdedicated people at the Harry Singer Foundation are providing

opportunities for Americans to make positive changes in their own

communities, across the nation.

Programs, designed for the general public but currently focusing on

teachers and high school students -- including essay contests,

community service project-development, online services, research

materials, and curricula development-- all are ways that members ofthe non-profit Harry Singer Foundation are making a tangible

difference in our nation.

Founded to preserve both the ideal and the practice of freedom, "HSF

aims to help people develop the skills and knowledge essential to thetask," according to co-Founder Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan. "Our

focus is on the average citizen, and our goal is to motivate him or her

to make positive differences in America."

Martha Collings, a teacher at Plainview High School in Ardmore,

Oklahoma, whose high school students participate in annual HSF

essay contests, praised them as "a refreshing change from the usual

boring ones we are asked to enter."

Her sentiment probably arose from the complex and educationallystimulating components of the contest. Students must incorporate

first and second-hand research, classroom discussion, individual

analysis, and come up with their own conclusions to timely topics

like health care, the media's role in national elections, the

government's role in child care, and the importance of responsibility

to the proper functioning of the nation..

"This was one of the most challenging and thought-provoking

contests my students have entered," said Janet Newton, a teacherfrom Freeman High School, Rockford, Washington.

Another teacher, Jerry McGinley of DeForest High School in

DeForest, Wisconsin agreed, saying, "My students put in a great deal

v


13/113

of time and effort reading and discussing the various articles, writing

out discussion the questions, and writing the essays."

It is likely that these teachers also put in a great deal of time. The

HSF contest includes materials and support (through online services,texts, and personnel from the foundation) for an entire lesson plan

based around issues raised by the essay topic for a given year. HSF

aims to have teachers discuss the topic with their students extensively

before the actual writing begins.

Teacher Mary Ellen Schoonover of Strasburg High school inStrasburg, Colorado spent a considerable amount of time on

assignments and discussions related to the 1994 topic

"Responsibility: Who has It and Who Doesn't and What This Meansto the Nation."

"I felt the Singer essay was a valuable instructional tool," she said. "Iincorporated the materials into class by distributing the required

reading essays and questions to use as homework assignments with

class discussion following each week for four weeks. After

discussing the essays, students chose a topic, and classes did library

research."

The result of this kind of preparation is thousands of well-researchedanalyses of a topic. The essays are judged by a variety of ordinary

citizens and, depending on the topic, a large sampling of attorneys,

academics, politicians, financial wizards, other teens and senior

citizens. This works because schools are not judged against each

other, but only internally, so each school ends up with awards."That's the big attraction of our contest," explains board member,

Donna Glacken. "Every school is a winner. That and the fact that we

publish excerpts from the contest and distribute the hard copy book

to all 535 members of congress and their state and communitypoliticians and home town media."

vi


14/113

Community Involvement Occurred Gradually

In the 1992-93 school year, the Harry Singer Foundation extended

the reach of its programs. More than five thousand official

candidates for national office (most of them unknown) were polled,along with schools and members of the media. Participants were ableto see a comparison of poll results among the three categories.

The 1993-94 subject of our essay contest:Responsibility: Who Has It

and Who Doesn't and What That Means To The Nation, generated

such an enthusiastic response that we decided to offer this contest asan annual option. According to contest rules, students were to include

in their papers examples of five responsible acts and three

irresponsible acts we were trying to accentuate the positive. Thatfirst contest resulted in three feedback-books.

The first book, The White Hats, featured the responsible acts.

Numerous students offered more than their quota of irresponsible

acts, many in the form of outrageous lawsuits which are the primary

subject of the second book: Responsibility: Who Has It and Who

Doesn't and What That Means To The Nation. Concealed among all

the required examples was the subject of the third book titled,Doesn't Any One Care About The Children?. It is our plea to you in

response to the cry we heard from over a thousand teenagers. Ourreaders were at times overwhelmed by the anguish, despair, rage and

hopelessness found in many of the opinions and stories embedded in

those essays.

In 1995 the Foundation had students poll their communities and

question politicians, members of the local media, attorneys and

others for their opinions regarding social needs as determined by theresults of those polls. Solutions for "local governments struggling

with limited resources" were judged by a dozen governors, and asmall group consisting of U.S. senators, congressmen and big city

mayors.

The National High School Essay Contest Comes to an End

vii


15/113

For twenty years HSF offered recognition and incentives to everyhigh school submitting at least ten essays covering a specified topic

involving public policy and the role of government. Students have

studied and written about social security, term limits for the United

States Congress, government's role in child-care, government's rolein health care, the media's role in choosing our candidates fornational office, responsibility and even encouraged young people to

work with local government to find alternatives to old ways of

servicing citizen needs.

Many students, and especially teachers, put an enormous amount ofwork into our programs. Students were given reading assignments

and asked to answer twenty questions before they began their essays.

Submittals were judged on how well the topic was covered andevidence of serious thinking, rather than on writing skill. In the fallexcerpts were published in a book and distributed back to the schools

as well as to members of Congress and to others interested in public

policy. This allowed students to see how their peers across the

country handled the subject matter.

We launched www.singerfoundation.org in the fall of 1994. As

more and more schools gained Internet access they were able to

receive and transfer materials which we could put directly on ourweb site. Essays sent in digital form via email freed us from having

to recruit volunteers who used the keyboard to input the work of

students that used to arrive by mail as hard copy. In 2001 we began

putting entire essays online, delaying publication of books like theone you are reading. At the end of 2006 we decided to resume

publishing the students work in hard copy and to phase out the

Foundations essay contest era. On our web site

www.singerfoudation.org you will find the complete text of every

HSF book published since 1990, often including the rules and

required reading for the particular contest. You may browse, print theentire book or request a hard copy from the Foundation by using the

contact information provided.

We certainly have not lost interest in the goals of the HSF national

essay contests. We are particularly proud of our attempt to encourage

viii


16/113

students to gather facts and think logically. The Harry SingerFoundation continues to share the goal of those who teach students

how to think, not what to think. To that end we have posted links to

some of, what we consider to be, the best online essay contests

offered by other organizations.

2008 Begins a New Era

Current Foundation programs continue to seek and encourage the

exchange of ideas. We took two years to renovate our web site which

hosts the Foundations history. Twenty years worth of students

research and opinions may now be accessed by topic (Teens SpeakOut) or by clicking on a state in the Archive forum and finding

student ideas by school, teacher or participant. We have presented

this information in a way that we believe visitors to our web site willfind useful.

You will also find on our web site new projects such as Kids 4 Kids

and Transition to Teaching (T2T) which were mentioned earlier.

Kids 4 Kids is expanding under the expert guidance of our

Champion, Steve Platt and is now a full fledged program. While thescience and math portion of T2T is in good hands, HSF is working to

place volunteer mentors in subjects that are not on the States agenda.

With the help of future Champions we expect the program to be

picked up by states other than California. We are looking forChampions to contact engineering companies and societies, local

artists, athletes and alumni associations to find members who are

willing to donate time and energy to teach what they love includingmusic, art and athletics, subjects that dont necessarily have to be

taught in a classroom. The Foundation wants to join with the

numerous other groups and individuals who are trying to bring this

uncovered talent into the school system as mentors, teacher-aids andaccredited teachers. We already have a program of accreditation that

can be completed with only one day a month class attendance for 12months.

The Philanthropy Project is a collaboration between the Harry SingerFoundation and the Templeton Foundation. It is a national,

multimedia public service campaign aimed at the general public,

ix


17/113 x

legislators, opinion leaders and the media. By using film andtelevision to tell compelling stories about the good works, conducted

by mostly small and unrecognized charitable foundations, the

Philanthropy Project seeks to introduce philanthropy to young people

and to promote the spirit of philanthropy in communities across thecountry.

Media Watch is a revision of an inspirational program for students

initiated by the Harry Singer Foundation in 1994. The goal is touncover good news in communities, feed it to local media outlets and

monitor publication. Over the life of the project, the good news

should increase in relation to the bad news, with both kinds being

carefully documented.

Another Way is the culmination of over twenty years of Foundation

experience. We know most adults underestimate the capabilities ofyoung people and their idealism, energy and eagerness to be

productive members of their communities. Another Way gives young

people an opportunity to prove their competence.

Problem Solvers is a pilot project geared towards college and highschool campuses. Students debate local and national issues using

media (radio, TV, newspapers). Not only do the students learn, but

their nonpartisan information would be a boon to the many in our

society that find that regulations and even laws have been passed

without their knowledge and opportunity to contribute to the

discussion or dissent.

The goal of the goal of the Human Nature project is not modest. The goal is

to improve the chances that man will discover how to live with his kind inpeace and tolerance, creating a free, stable environment. Once he figuresout the necessary rules of conduct, the next step would be to figure out how

to enforce these rules while preserving maximum individual and groupfreedom of thought and action.

We invite you to take advantage of opportunities to participate in, orbetter yet, to Champion these pilot programs by visiting our newly

renovated web site at www.singerfoundation.org.


18/113

Contents

About the Harry Singer Foundation

Contents

Introduction

Excerpts from 2004 Essays

Instructions for Participants

Four Complete Essays

Required Reading

Questions Re: Required Reading

A Sampling of Answers to Questions

Participants

i

1

3

5

24

25

35

65

67

91

1


19/113

2


20/113

Introduction

As I went through the 2004 essays, choosing excerpts to tell a story, I wasimpressed by the intensity of the writing and could imagine the passionatediscussions that preceded the written word.

The material presented in this book was written in 2003-2004 and muchhas happened since then. The views expressed here have surely evolved asthe situation in Iraq continued and the young authors matured. On theother hand, many of the views expressed by these, then high schoolstudents, I hear expressed by adults today; often not as thoughtfully oreloquently. In fact some of the students I believe were prescient.

In June, 2008, I heard a radio talk show host decry the education at one ofCalifornias State colleges. He expressed dismay that from all evidenceonly one point of view was taught and digested by the students. The hostwas nostalgic for the days when education meant exposure to discussion ofa variety of ideas.

The Harry Singer Foundation prides itself on its insistence that at least twosides of every issue be presented to the teen participants in our essaycontests. Before they begin writing they are required to read varying viewson the subject. The students then engage in research to discover and

understand the pros and cons of each side and are ask to explain thesecontradictions in their submittals. Only after that is accomplished and theessayists have absorbed this new information are they expected to analyze,discuss and come to their own unique conclusions which can now bebacked up with facts.

Since our inception in 1987 our goal has been not to teach students what tothink, but how to think. Analysis always starts with skeptical research andthe comparison of antagonistic opinions. We think you will be encouraged by the results of the students research and analysis of the subject and

perhaps hold the youth of America in higher esteem after reading thecompiled excerpts presented here.

Margaret Bohannon-Kaplan, Co-Founder and Director

The Harry Singer FoundationCarmel, CA October 17, 2008

3


21/113

4


22/113

Preemption or Prevention?

How Have Governments Prevented War In The Past

and What Should Be Their Approach In The Future?

Preemption vs. Prevention

Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting todefend oneself; prevention is believing that another country may possiblyattack, or may desire to attack. (Senator Feingold, 2002). To me, it is thedifference between knowing and assuming.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Mandy refines the distinction by emphasizing the degree of

information:Many times preemption and prevention are used interchangeably.Preemption is knowing [someone] is planning to attack you and notwaiting till after a strike to protect yourself. In this case there is usuallymuch evidence. On the other side, prevention is thinking that somebodymay possibly attack you at some time, and justifying the immediate use offorce on those reasons. It is the difference between having information thatthere is a planned attack and not having that information or evidence. Bothof these have been used in order to try to prevent war [in the past].Mandy Green, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Kimberly suggests preemption is a non-traditional form of self

defense:

In an address made to the citizens of the United States of America duringthe Cuban missile crisis, President John F. Kennedy said that We nolonger live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents asufficient challenge to a nations security. In this statement, PresidentKennedy was confronting the issue of preemption, which is the idea thatthe United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that isnot imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future. This

doctrine puts a different spin on the traditional concept of self defense.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Ann Marie has a personal reason to prefer preemption over

prevention:

Prevention is when you do not take action right away and you wait. Byusing prevention we are risking the lives of fellow Americans. Prevention

5


23/113

isnt the way to go. If the government uses prevention then it might be toolate to take action. We will be goners. To me, preemption is the way to go.I have a father and a brother in the military. Through this experience withOperation Iraqi Freedom I have learned that when you haveinformationof a possible attack, you need to attack them first.Ann Marie Pepper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Kyla, below, seems to be going around in circles:

Such a doctrine does not allow any nation to develop a weapon system inits own land or in the land of another for defense or offense. If Americadecides that the developing nation is a threat to us or that at some time inthe future it may threaten us, we can use preemption. The use ofpreemption in such cases presents the question of whether it is okay to useforce against these nations when they may actually mean no harm to us.Should we bomb them or send troops to their countries and kill them whenwe really dont have to? If there is no evidence suggesting an attack on usat the present time, why should we worry about it? The reason we shouldworry about it is because they might not be doing any harm to us now, butin the future they might do more harm if we dont stop them.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden ,Tennessee

Kimberly justifies the Preemption Doctrine

A main benefit of the doctrine of preemption is that innocent lives are notlost because we waited for the enemy to attack us first. The terroristattacks on September 11, 2001, took the lives of thousands of innocent,unsuspecting American citizens. We knew that Osama bin Laden and theterrorist group al-Qaeda posed a potential threat to the security of theUnited States and had taken action against us in the past. However, if wehad enacted a doctrine of preemption, we might have been able to stop the plane hijackings and destruction of part of the Pentagon and the WorldTrade Center. Personally, I believe that a preemptive strike can havepositive effects when carried out correctly.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Kimberly goes on to say the Preemption Doctrine is essential:

The Preemption Doctrine is an essential part of the fight against terrorismand the safety of our nation as a whole. With the ever-increasingproduction of weapons of mass destruction and the increasing probabilityof a terrorist organization acquiring them, the United States must doeverything within its power to prevent a strike against our homeland.Preemption is the most effective and efficient means of defense.

In todays world of nuclear warheads and hydrogen bombs,

6


24/113

countriesmust [distinguish], not only friend from enemy, but also thecapability of the enemys weapons. A nuclear attack on an enemy can becarried out without any warning and could decimate all life in [any]region. [It is unlikely] that a nuclear attack could be stopped oncebegun. That is why [attacks] must be prevented before they erupt into afull scale, horrifying, nuclear war. The major [threat is from] rogueterrorists who believe in only one thing; blowing up the United States. So,if a nuclear attack can not be averted through diplomacy and cannot bestopped once begun, that leaves a preemptive strike as the onlyalternative. This [is a valid] alternative because once diplomacy fails, theUnited States must act to ensure the safety of the homeland. Overall, I believe that when executed correctly, preemption is the most effectivedefense."Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Kyla, below, makes a clear case for preemption:

The Preemption Doctrine states that there must be a current and crediblerisk to our security, and there must be a growing trend of dangerousbehavior to be considered a threat upon which we should act. It is our rightto prevent a tragedy once the above two are linked. For example,[assuming we had] more than ample evidence that Iraq had weapons ofmass destruction, the capability to create more, the will to use them, andthe connections to groups who have the desire to use them, we should notwait around for them to use thee resources. [In] this example, Iraq [wouldhave been] a credible and current threat qualifying for preemption.President Bush [made such an assumption and] used this preemptiondoctrine by sending U. S. troops to Iraq to help maintain a securegovernment before something worse than the tragedy of September 11thcould take place.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Katlin also seems secure in her belief in favor of preemption:If all countries adopt a policy of preemption we would be better off.Some might say that policy would cause worldwide war and destruction. Idont think it will. With todays technology and [expertise], countries will be afraid to make threats or plan to attack each other because theywouldnt want the repercussion of an attack. Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Michael spent a long time developing his analysis of the issue:

According to United States intelligence, the Iraqi regime was closely tiedwith terrorist groups. [We also believed] there [was] evidence that Iraq

7


25/113

was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction [and so] wedeterminedthat Iraq posed a major threat [to] our security. The first option was tolook the other way and hope that things fix themselves. The second optionwas to take preemptive action. Both options have their consequences, butwhich set of consequences is more favorable than the other?

First lets take a good look at both options, beginning with taking noaction at all. There are three significant advantages in taking no action atall. First is satisfying the international community. Many nations believethat the United States had no business invading Iraq. Through dormancy,we [would have appeasedthese nations. The second advantage is thepreservation of the United States image. If a war broke out, the UnitedStates [would not have started it]. The third advantage involves money. Bytaking no action, we would not have to pay the high military costs.

By taking no action in Iraq, there are also three significantdisadvantages. First, we are only delaying warfare. Somewhere down theline we might be attacked and forced to go to war against a more powerfulIraq. Secondly, enemies across the world would get the message that theycan attack the United States and get away with it. The third disadvantage isthat we would have left a tyrant in charge to run [the Iraqi] people into theground.

Taking preemptive action, has several advantages [over doingnothing]. First the world will benefit from a victory [over]terror. Secondly, we would obtain justice for the victims and familiesaffected by the events of September 11. Third, we would save manyinnocent lives by preventing future enemy strikes. Fourth, we would freethe Iraqi people from their ruthless dictator, Sadam Hussein.

The major disadvantage in taking preemptive action unfortunatelyincludes the loss of life. It is almost certain that a military operation willresult in the loss of valiant soldiers. Also, we must take into accountthe possibility for lost civilian lives. Another disadvantage is money. Anoperation such as the one in Iraq can cost billions of dollars.

Michael even looks to history for guidance in his analysis:

Now taking a look from a historical standpoint, events such as PearlHarbor could have been avoided if we had engaged in preemption. We satin our corner of the world and watched Hitler strengthen Nazi Germany,establish the Axis powers, begin European conquest, slaughtering Jewsand other minorities. The same can be said about September 11, 2001.The previous administration had Osama Bin Ladens head given to themon a platter in 1993. Instead of taking advantage of the situation theyopted to take no action and the Saudi Arabian government let Bin Ladenrun free. Eight years later, Bin Ladens group, al-Quaeda, launched the

8


26/113

largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941.

He draws a logical conclusion below, admitting more work remains:

In light of the consequential and historical evidencethe choice isobvious. Approval of the preemptive doctrine is necessary to overcomethe challenges that Iraq brings to the international table. Indeed militaryoperations and reconstruction is a challenge, but if planned properly, wecan escape with a minimum amount of negative consequences. In doingso, Iraq becomes a successful, free state in which democracy rules. This isexactly what we chose to do. In March of 2003, the United Stateslaunched one of the most impressive military operations in history.Coalition troops rocketed through the country and took the capital city,Baghdad, in a matter of days. As a result, the Iraqi people were freed and[we thought] the world was rid of another terrorism cell.

[But] military occupation of the country did not mean the end of theoperation. Pockets of resistance could still be found and [an elected]government was not yet in place. More than a year after the beginning ofthe operation, we were still prepping Iraq for independence. On June 30,2004, we handed the power over to the new Iraqi government [and that hasnot gone as well as expected.] [However], I believe that the UnitedStates chose wisely in engaging in preemption and that this option [will]yield the least amount of negative consequences short and long term. Ibelieve that a preemptive doctrinemust be refined to the point of nearflawlessness [and adopted permanently in order to] provide for a moresecure and prosperous nation for future generations to enjoy.Michael Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

American Arrogance?

Okay for the United States but only the United States?

Preemptive measures might also start wars. Senator Feingold said It may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their ownpreemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager tosee a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or byChina or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerousin the hands of anybody else?.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Twenty-one years ago, Israel exercised preemptive action when itsplanes bombed Iraq's nuclear research facility. Israel justified its action byclaiming Iraq was about to produce nuclear weapons and that

9


27/113

threatened Israel. But the United Nations, including the US, stronglycondemned Israel. Nowthe United States [is] using the September11th attack to rationalize its new doctrine.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

If the United States must act alone in these matters, then so be it.We will continue to lead the world into the future with the rest ofthe world following in our path. Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Use preemption because we canbecause we are so powerful?

The first reason that I support the doctrine of preemption is because itwill warn other countries not to interfere with us. The Monroe Doctrinetold European nations to stay out of our business, and having a doctrine of

preemption will do the same thing. Another reason that I support thedoctrine of preemption is because we are capable of doing so. Our nationis so powerful in so many diverse areas. It would be crazy to sit back andlet another country attack us. The third reason I support a doctrine ofpreemption is because we are a caring nation. If we see another countrysuffering we are going to step up and do whats right-no matter what anyother country says.Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Use preemption to get our point across?

Although governments have not always been successful in preventingwar, I dont think that any country wants to be involved in war. I think thatour country should adopt a policy of preemption and stand by it. If weknow that a country is going to attack us, there is no point in waiting toattack them. If we are successful, we will have gotten our point across andthere will be no more aggression.Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

I believe that the preemption doctrine is the best approach to solving thenations everyday problems. Using the preemptive approach, we canmaintain our high standing as a dominant country and prevent any attacksthat may occur in the future. I think it is okay to kill a few men to get ourpoint across rather that have thousands of our men killed.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

10


28/113

Samantha, below, is not clear if our attack on Iraq was preventive or

preemptive, but she definitely believes it may have done us more harm

than good and warns us about being apushy nation:

Iraq was not another powerful nation. The threat to America was notimmediate. The attack on Iraq was not one that was preemptive to war.Instead it was an attempt to limit the amount of bloodshed that might comesome time in the distant future. It was a form of prevention. The affects:terrorist strikes within the country, waning international trust, and anotherblow to an institution that is key to forming a better global community. Forthe people of Iraq life may become better than it was under Saddam but forthis possibility the war cannot be justified. Animosity towards Americahas not decreased, so while [one] threat is gone another is growing.

Preemptive strikes, such as the one in Iraq, are not the way to stabilizethe world. Perhaps action [should have] been taken, but not then and notwith a snub to the rest of the world. Powerful countries influence the restof the world whether they mean to or not. If America engages inpreemptive strikes, then other countries may feel that they are justified indoing so as well. How could America ask Israel to try negotiations withthe Palestinians? Our own preemptive strikes could strengthen the ideathat we are a pushy nation that cannot be trusted. It would reinforce intheir minds that we are a threat to their ways of life and one that needs tobe dealt with as soon as possible, because we may strike at any time.

Preemptive strikes can also hurt the economy. People may be lesswilling to trade or invest, and without other nations supporting thepreemptive strike the financial burden can drain our nation. Educationand social security are among other things that may end up beingsacrificed for the cause. The country may be safe from outside threats, butthe country would still suffer domestically if these important needs are notmet. Then there is also safety at home in our own country to think about.We focus our attention overseas instead of fixing the violence at home.Senator Bryd, for example, spoke of the sniper shootings. The threats andproblems that are here in front of us are left unattended as we focus on theless immediate problems abroad. Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Amanda calls it as she sees it:Have we all become hypocrites? We demand that the entire world see thesuperiority of our ways, yet we cannot even honor [our] values. Are wewilling to bomb a country and kill its people even though they have notharmed us? Have we painted all of our neighbors as villains in this 21stcentury McCarthyism?Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

11


29/113

Opposition to the Preemption Doctrine

Kimberly believes the Preemption Doctrine provides too much power

to the executive branch of government:

The opposition to the Preemption Doctrine suggests that it provides thePresident with too much power. Who is to decide what is too much powerand what is not? The Constitution established that it was the job of theSupreme Court, Senate, and House of Representatives to check the powersof the executive branch of government.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Amanda agrees and puts the burden on American citizens:

Allowing our President to strike others without seeking counsel andapproval from Congress is a betrayal to our republic and those who fought

so gallantly to free our ancestors from tyranny. Have we so soon forgottenthe importance of having a say in our governments actions, and our owndestinies? Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

Megan is more than skeptical when it comes to using preemption:

Some people say that a preemptive war would be unjust. This countrywill defend [itself] fiercely if attacked, but [it] should not go looking for afight by attacking first. [Besides,] other nations might be encouraged to dothe same; strike other countries they feel threatened by. That would not be

a good situation. If the world is not very peaceful now, just think what itwould be like in that circumstance. A preemptive strike would cost [an]estimated100 or 200 billion dollars! That enormous amount of moneywould affect our country greatly, [and] in a negative way. That moneycould go to fund something more important, such as education, or medicalresearch. After September 11, 2001, we improved our security but preemptive strikes could [provoke] more threats and terrorist attacks.Personally I do not favor the preemption doctrine. I don't feelit willbenefit our country if weseek out, and purposely attack another countrythat [seems] threatening.

Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Kyla shares her research and tells us whatsome people think about

the Doctrine of Preemption:

Some [people] think that preemption is a blue print for continued worlddomination by the military. They also think that it is a foolhardy plan thatwill take this nation into places it should not go. It will make enemies of

12


30/113

this nation where there should be friends and it will [turn] friends intoenemies.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Jon and Heather, although from different parts of the country,share their own similar thoughts about the drastic effect the

Preemption Doctrine would have on the United States:

Although I agreesome strong points can be made for preemptivestrikes, I just cant see the pros outweighing the cons in this ongoingdebate. I am for protecting the people of this country, but no one needs todiebecause of a mere suspicion that some country mighthave weaponsof mass destruction and mightbe planning to use them [to attack us.]Whos to say that a country doesnt own weapons of mass destructionsimply for defensive reasons? Im pretty sure that America owns weaponsof mass destruction, but I dont see eastern countries marching into theUnited Statesbecause we might use them to attack others. Theonly thing that could come out of [a preemptive] strike is war. Countrieswill not simply stand back and lettheir people die and not doanything about it. Preemptive strikes would [devastate both sides.]Jon Davies, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Having weapons of mass destruction and actually attacking someone aretwo completely different things. America has weapons of massdestruction. Does that mean that we are about to attack some other

country? Our government is not perfect, but I believe that America hasdone a great job of securing our safety and that preemptive efforts shouldnot be taken.I believe that preemptive measures would damage ourgovernment and our national values What would happen to our country?The world, not just the United States, as we know it would be drasticallyaffected by this new doctrine. I believe that we should continue the sameapproach with other nations in the future and interfere with other countriesonly when [absolutely] necessary.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Amanda acts as our conscience once again:

Preemptive strikes will [diminish] Americas standing [in the world]. Wewould have proven ourselves to be hypocrites by saying we intend to bringdemocracy and all of its laurels to Iraq by bombing them. Have they poseda certifiable threat to our country? When we acted offensively, weourselves became the tyrants, the aggressors - dictators of the world.

13


31/113

Just because the world is not a democracy does not mean we can allowourselves to become dictators. We must apply our [own ideals] to everyaction we take, including foreign policy. If we truly believe in ourConstitution, then we must accept it as the rights of all men, not justAmerican citizens. That means that in attacking Iraq, and in the acceptanceof the Preemption Doctrine, we have betrayed our [American ideals].Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

Preemption Dilemmas

How does anyone KNOW for certain?

The [trouble with] the doctrine of preemption is that the governmentmust justify military action based on conjectures and suppositions. When apreemptive strike is launched, the target has yet toact against the

attacking nation. Therefore, there is little or no concrete proof thatsomething would have actually happened if the strike had not beenlaunched. The events that occurred in Iraq, while trying to prove thatSaddam Hussein was harboring or building weapons of mass destruction,have shown how difficult it is to prove that an enemy nation was plottingagainst us before [we] attacked.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

The reliability of information

I can see where preemptive efforts are worth considering. By taking

preemptive measures, terrorism may decrease. We might never have tosuffer through another September 11 ever again. This would be a blessing.America would no longer be in constant fear of another terrorist attack.However, what if those preemptive efforts are wrong? What if there wassome misleading information? We would be at war with a country for noreason.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

What we cant know without the benefit of hindsight

How far is too far when we are protecting our national interests? Should

we wait for other countries approvalor go it alone and fight for what we[believe] is right?Kaitlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Should our governments military use preemption or prevention? Wouldit be a wiser choice for the United States to protect our country onprobable cause, or should we just be prepared for the worst? ...Isnt it

14


32/113

possible to [do both]? There is not any wrong answer. Preemption andprevention are bothtactics to keep America [safe].Kari Rudolph, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Ethical Considerations

Is it okay to kill a person?

As for the ethical question, Is it ever ok to kill?, I think it heavilydepends on the circumstance. Killing for [self-defense and defendingones country] is justifiable.Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Opposition to the Preemption doctrine [is] rooted in ethical

considerations [as well as concerns about the growth] of governmentpower. Is it ever ok to kill?, This ancient question should be reworded Is itok to take the lives of few to save millions? because this is what ourworld has come to today. With the possession of weapons of massdestruction, rogue countries could kill millions in an instant, whereas a preemptive strike might take the lives of 1000 terrorists or affiliatedkillers. The answer to this question is clear; in the society that welive in today, ridding the world of a few terrorists is the price to pay for saving the lives of millions of innocent civilians whoselives could be snuffed out in an instant by a nuclear attack.

Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

When you discuss taking any kind of military action, you must take ethicsinto consideration. First of all, you must ask, Is it okay to kill a person? Ifyou believe in the teachings of the Bible, this question would most likely be answered with a resounding no. However, when considered from amilitary stance, your only options are usually kill or be killed. Is it worththe risk of losing the lives of no telling how many innocent civilians [byattacking a suspected] enemy nation that has not yet acted against us?Should we wait for them to fire before we load our guns? It seems that wewould be compelled to act against the enemy before they attacked in orderto prevent the loss of our own people. Then again, one must consider theinnocent civilians who reside in the enemys nation. Like the innocentcivilians in Afghanistan, they most likely have little association with theterrorists or government that is threatening [us]. A preemptive strike mightcost the lives of some of these people.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

15


33/113

The temptation to assume the role of a super-hero

Preemptive action is the 21st century response to a slew of tough lessonslearned throughout the 20th century. The 20th Century was full of difficultlessons. It seemed that time after time we stood paralyzed as millions died.So often we found ourselves apologizing and swearing it would neverhappen again. After witnessing devastation of Nazi terror and later horrorsin the Balkans, Iraq, Somalia, and Rwanda, it was concluded thatsomehow these injustices must be prevented. The preemptive doctrine justifies intervention and allows us to stop these atrocities before they begin. [With it] we are able to stop genocides before they start, toppledictators before they come to power, and negotiate civil disputes beforethey turn into all out war. Action can be taken against an aggressor likeSaddam Hussein before he [can cause more] devastation. We canshow the world that we have accepted our place as [the #1] world power,and that were prepared to be held accountable for the world, and forhumankind, and that were prepared to act to protect what we believe isright when no one else will.Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

But Amanda is aware of the pitfalls and points them out for the rest of

us:

However, this action comes, as all things do, at a high price. Dare we go back on our own ideals? Would we convict a criminal before a crimehasbeen committed? It seems preemptive action is just that. Not only isthe expanded Preemption Doctrine allowing us to attack another country, but it is allowing us to attack without provocation, and secondly, it isallowing a single person (the President) to decide whether or not this is acourse of action we must pursue.Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

Amanda brings ethics into the equation again and warns us not to

betray the very values that make the United States worth defending:

So in [using the Preemption Doctrine] we betray [our core] values.Justice, liberty, empowerment of the people, democracyall of thesevalues would vanish. Innocent until proven guilty, will be replaced

with Threaten us and die.Amanda Beck, La Costa Canyon High School, Carlsbad, California

The past is used as an argument in favor of PreemptionDoing nothing doesnt work:

Many of our countrys leaders have been in favor of preemptive action.During the Cuban missile crisis President John F. Kennedy showed his

16


34/113

support by telling Americans that standing back and doing nothing wouldbe the greatest danger of all. Three months prior to the attacks on PearlHarbor Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the Nazis that the United Stateswould not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggressionon the high seas. More recently President Bill Clinton launched OperationDesert Fox, which was an intense 70-hour bombing campaign againstSaddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign he guaranteed Americansthat we would remain a strong military presence in the area and wouldremain ready to use it if Saddam tried to rebuild his weapons of massdestruction.

Saddam Hussein had been a constant fear in the minds of manyAmericansHussein [once had] biological and chemical weapons.President Bush realized the immediate need to [make certain] thoseweapons of mass destruction [would not be used again]. FranklinRoosevelt once asked our country to think about something. If you see arattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before youcrush him. These words should give us much to think about. If the UnitedStates government knows of someone that is a threat to this country and its people I believe action should be taken. We must use history to ouradvantage and learn from it. President Kennedy was correct when he toldAmericans that the 1930s and Hitler should be a good lesson, [proving]that things that go unchecked or are not challenged can only lead to worsethings such as war. While Presidents such as Kennedy, Roosevelt, andClinton did push preemption, for the most part this country tended to bepatient and practiced restraint. I believe that when our safety is on the line,action must be taken.Krista Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

In 2004 Derrek thought we were right to take preemptive action but

also had the foresight to realize that there would be a time togive up. I

think he might be among the majority that favored withdrawal in

2007- 2008 and a sharing of the burden of peacekeeping in Iraq.

With all of the facts on hand, it is easy to see what option shouldhave been chosen. By engaging in preemptive action, the UnitedStates [hoped to] transform Iraq into a democracy that would flourish

and prosper in the future. Do we not believe that expanding democracy, promoting strong economies, and creating peace throughout the worldis a major part of the American philosophy? ...If America had not taken preemptive action, [there could have been] dire consequences... Iraq[could have] built up an army that could [have] ended the lives ofmany more Americans. Although the United States was right inbeginning the war against terror in Iraq, [there will be a] time to

17


35/113

give upand let the United Nations do [its] jobDerrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Below, Kimberly and Stephen remind us that preemption has been

employed many times before the invasion of Iraq

Preemption has been employed more than once throughout the history ofthe United States. Some instances where a preemptive strike was made bythe United States military are the Cuban missile crisis, the cruise missilestrikes against Afghanistan, Sudan, and Kosovo, and, most recently,Operation Enduring Freedom.Kimberly Taylor, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

There have been many times throughout U.S. history when a preemptiveaction was taken as a defense to a possible enemy attack. An earlyexample took place in 1962 when John F. Kennedy was President. J.F.K.spresidency was a time of great terror and strain due to the iron curtain thathad engulfed much of Europe. When the Soviets moved into Cuba andinstalled nuclear warheads pointing toward the United States shores, apreemptive action was taken in the form of a blockade. Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba to show that America would not tolerate this type ofthreat and also to hopefully force [the Soviets] to peacefully retreat. His blockade did in fact work, and after many months the Soviets finallypulled out of Cuba and returned to Europe without a missile being fired byeither side. This is a classic example of a preemptive action that ended anotherwise hopeless situation.

Many more successful preemptive strikes were completed during the1980s during Ronald Reagans terms in office. The first of these tookplace in 1983 and dealt with the invasion of Grenada, a country that wascausing continual problems for the U.S. President Reagan also ordered the bombing of terrorist sites in Libya in 1986 in a futile attempt to endterrorism by starting at the root. In these two cases, the offending countryshowed clear plans to attack the United States, thus rendering themtextbook preemptive cases. To prevent these planned attacks, the U.S.immediately attacked these two nations, swiftly eliminating any threat thatthey could pose to the U.S.

When looking back through history, there is one specific tragic eventthat I believe could have been easily avoided through a preemptivestrike. This horrible event was Pearl Harbor and the enemy was theJapanese. The United States previously knew of the Japanese alliance withthe axis powers and also knew of their air capabilities. There is even nowtalk of intelligence knowing of a possible attack on Pearl Harbor by theJapanese well before the event. If the United States had evaluated the

18


36/113

evidence, they would have found that this warranted a preemptive strike onJapan that could have taken shape in a number of ways. This would havesurely changed the course of history and saved thousands of lives in theprocess.Stephen Barbera, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Kyla agrees with Stephen that the Prevention Doctrine paved the way

for Pearl Harbor:

The other use of military force that is less straight forward is thepreventative approach. This is believing that another country may possiblyattack, then justifying the use of force on those grounds. An examplewhere the United States used the preventative approach is when the UnitedStates decided to wait until we had sufficient information about theJapanese to take action. Three months later, under the presidency ofFranklin Delano Roosevelt, the Hawaiian Islands were bombed severely inwhat was known as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many men, women, andchildren were killedThis sudden strike against the U.S. was the result ofnot using the preemption doctrine. Many lives could have been spared ifwe had taken action to prevent the hostility that happened on December7th.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

However Heather, below, also refers to Pearl Harbor but disagrees

with Stephen and Kyla. She cannot justify preemption and urges our

government to continue using preventive measures:

The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was also anotherdevastating day in American History. Japanese Airliners bombed PearlHarbor, Hawaii and marked the beginning of World War II. Threats wereapparent before the onset of the attack. However, did that give us the rightto send military aircrafts to Japan and [start] bombing them? Instead oftaking preemptive measures, I believe that our government should takemore preventive measures. When another country makes a threat to attack,be prepared for that attack. Bombing another country and killing thousandsof innocent people because of a threat will only make matters worse.Besides, it is wrong to kill. I believe in defense, but I think that it should

be put into action only when necessary.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

In hindsight preemption often looks like a good idea:

Upon looking back in history, preemption seems to be a good idea. IfEuropean countries had practiced preemption during Hitlers reign, WorldWar II may have been avoided. [Instead] the axis powers were allowed to

19


37/113

grow and expand until the point of no return. What followed was thegreatest catastrophe in world history: World War II. It is also possible thatthe events of September 11 could have been avoided if America had practiced preemption. We had Osama Bin Laden in 1993, but we lethim run free from Saudi Arabia. If action would have been taken then,thousands of American lives could have been potentially saved, but because we did not heed the signs that were shown to us, thegreatest tragedy on American soil took place. Derrek Lyons, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Solutions

Heather sticks to her beliefs and sees prevention as the preferred

solution for America:

I think that we should expand our preventive measures and be ready foran attack at all times.Heather King, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

A solution for a more specific solution is the result of Megans

research:

In [a speech] Prime Minister Tony Blair commented [that] there shouldbe a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition. This is so thatthe refugees are given shelter, food, and help during the winter months.Megan Mayak, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Kyla wants the United States to use its power sparingly and is critical

of the policy executed by President Bush:

The wise course of action for a powerful nation is to use its powersparingly, in measured amounts and use it as a last result. The BushDoctrine of Preemption goes beyond the definition it has set and beyondthe generally accepted standard for nations. This Administration hasbroadened the meaning Preemption to include preventive war where forcemay be used without any indication that an imminent attack is to occur toensure that a serious threat to the United States does not gather or grow

over time.Kyla Carter, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Lindsey advocates compromise:

I believe that war could be replaced with compromise. War always beginsover some little dispute and gradually grows larger and larger. It is in thehands of our leaders. If they all agreed to something, we would save the

20


38/113

lives of millions of men and women soldiers not to mention the innocentvictims that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm surethat the compromise wouldn't make either side overjoyed but would waractually be any better? Would they get more satisfaction out of killingmillions that have nothing to do with the dispute in the first place, but whoare victims of their leaders ignorance and who are still willing to fight fortheir country? I think an attack on a country is like two little boys fightingin the schoolyard. They are both fighting because of their pride andunwilling to reach a settlement before the [situation rages out of control]. Iknow that war is a complicated thing and that I do not fully understand allof the aspects. I was only 16 when the planes hit the twin towers. I couldnot understand why anyone would be so hateful as to kill innocent peopleto make a point. I think that people just let the hatred get the best of themwhen it comes to war. I know that war will continue throughout time andso will hate but maybe one day compromise willcome into the picture also.Lindsey Williams, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Samantha looks to the United Nations:We need to shed the ancient way in which countries have dealt with oneanother.The United Nations is one of the best tools for modernizing theworld. It isnot a perfect institution, but it is still young in the scheme ofthings. Once countries can see its worth and stop using it as an instrumentto pursue their own selfish needs, great things can be accomplished. Thebest way to prevent war is by engaging in peace talks. The U.N. createsa neutral setting for these discussions and can provide pressure from othercountries to settle a conflict peacefullyand stick to resolutions. War isa last resort. Many times in our world's history nations made promises towork for peace. They did so in the Quadruple Alliance, the League ofNations, and the United Nations whose charter opens with We the peoplesof the United Nations are determined to save the succeeding generationsfrom the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untoldsorrow to mankind... What is it going to take to make us stick with it?What horrors do we have to endure before it hits us that the struggle forpeace, as hard and trying as it may be, is by far the most able thing to carry

mankind through the ages? Only by working together will we be able topreserve mankind.Samantha Coppola, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

Katlin offers several solutions: a Good Neighbor policy, trade

sanctions, renewal of the mutually assured destruction doctrine used

effectively during the Cold War, helping poorer nations improve their

21


39/113

standard of living and support of world peace keeping organizations:

Teddy Roosevelt turned the Monroe Doctrine into a Good NeighborPolicy in order to try and ease tensions that existed around the worldduring his presidency. Governments have also prevented wars byimplementing trade sanctions on other countries. Instead of inflicting physical damage and loss of life, a country can hurt the economy ofanother country until they change their ways. Mutual assureddestruction was [used] during the Cold War. The United States and theSoviet Union both knew that they had the capability to destroy each other.It was just an issue of who was going to attack first. The nations knew thatif they attacked, the other would immediately strike back. This threatprevented the two countries from engaging in conflict. If the people of acountry are unhappy they are more likely to press for war in ordertogain resources and land to [improve] theirstandard of living. TheUnited Nations, an inter-governmental organization, and NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, are just two examples of peacekeeping organizations. Countries hesitate to go to war without theirapproval. These organizations work to keep peace and promotecompromise and agree to war only if it is the last resort.Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

In the end Katlin favors a world police force. The United Nations has

that role, but we have seen its record for peace keeping is dismal:

In order to prevent war between two or more countries, I think a new program should be founded. We should establish a world police. As ofright now, the United States is pretty much filling that position, and its notfair. Our men and women in the armed forces are risking their lives, andour money is being used to rebuild Iraq. There should be a worldwideorganization with representatives from each country that decides whenaction should be taken against a country. The police force could be madeup of volunteers from all nations. An attack would be imminent if and onlyif every other form of negotiation had failed. I think that an organizationsuch as this would greatly help the prevention of war in the future. Itwould also take away the burden of other countries having to act on theirown at their own risk. ..I think the formation of a world police force would

help to prevent war in the future. All countries will unite together andshare the cost, liability, exposure, and responsibility that would come withan organization of that measure.Katlin Cooper, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

22


40/113

Mandys solution is in a different direction:

A major cause of war is collective social stress. India could preventwar and end conflict by reducing social stress through the TranscendentalMeditation (TM) program. [We all] could learn from Mozambique'sexample of 1992. Mostly you can tell a governments or countrys socialand political standards based on their humanitarian relief, their willingnessto comply with other countries agreements and level of concern forpeace.Mandy Green, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

But Krista has the final say with her emphasis on action:

September 11th, Pearl Harbor, and other events have left this countryfeeling somewhat vulnerable. Whatever vulnerability we feel, we must notlet it show. We must remain the strong world power we are. Taking preemptive action, however, will have consequences. We must beprepared. Certain questions arise when it comes to preemption.... When itcomes to cost I dont think it could ever be too high when it comes to ourown safety. This nations safety is the governments responsibility. ,,,Should we just sit back and wait for another attack? Would that justifytaking action any more than the thousands of lives already lost by oneattack? Action must be taken as soon as the safety of this country is atstake. We must not sit back and wait for the snake to bite. Once it has itwill already be too late.Krista Osment, Camden Central High School, Camden, Tennessee

23


41/113

Instructions for the Preemption v Prevention 2004

Harry Singer Foundation National Essay Contest

Discuss the pros and cons of the preemption doctrine and make it clearwhat side you personally come down on and why. Include ethicalconsiderations (Is it ever okay to kill?) and examples from history in yourdiscussion. Before writing your paper, please complete the requiredreading and answer the questions that must be submitted with your essay.

24


42/113

FourComplete Essays

Prevention or PreemptionByAndrew LyonSomerset Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

One of the most important principles on which our country was founded isthe desire to avoid war at all cost and only take military action when wehave been attacked. Indeed our first president George Washington urgedthe nation to avoid war altogether for many years until the country hadbeen established. However, unfortunate as it may be, recent events such asthe rise of terrorism and especially the attack on the United States on

9/11/01 have forced president George W. Bush to temporarily set asidethese ideals and take action to combat the evil that currently threatenspeace in our world.

These actions have caused the President to come under a great deal ofcriticism from his political adversaries both at home and abroad. Somepeople feel that President Bush has abandoned our countrys long standingtradition of solving conflict through diplomacy instead of militaryforce. They feel that the problem should have been left up to the UnitedNations to deal with, as they have in the past, by passing resolution after

resolution politely asking Saddam Hussein to stop oppressing his peopleand producing chemical and biological weapons.

This approach was doomed to fail just as it did in the months before WorldWar Two when the countries of Europe adopted a policy of appeasementto deal with the military advances of Adolph Hitler. That strategy provedto be a tragic mistake for the allies as Hitler continued to gain ground andinvade countries until those countries that were left decided to fight back. This example proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that politicaldespots such as Hitler and Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to remain in

power indefinitely. That is why the United States invasion of Iraq andremoval of Saddam from power was not only justified, it was necessary.

This is not to say that The United States should by any means abandondiplomacy altogether. Indeed many conflicts throughout our nationshistory have been resolved without resorting to military action. Perhaps

25


43/113

the greatest example of our nations tradition of peaceful conflictresolution was the Cold War and subsequent collapse ofCommunism. This series of events was a testament to Americas ability toendure tough challenges by peaceful means.

However, in this new millennium America is faced with a newenemy.This enemy is terrorism. It is unlike any foe we have facedbefore. It does not reside in any specific location. It does not have a certainappearance or mode of operation. In fact [it] can take the form of anyone,anywhere. This enemy came to the forefront of American interest whenterrorists hijacked four passenger planes and crashed them into the WorldTrade Towers, the Pentagon, and a field in nearby ShanksvillePennsylvania. This attack on American soil prompted immediate anddecisive action on the part of America. The United States governmentinitiated a far reaching campaign to seek out those who committed theatrocious actsand stop the efforts of terrorist throughout the world .

The recent military campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and other statesponsors of terrorism serve to send a strong message to the world. Anyonewho supports and does not actively condemn terrorism of any kind will beconsidered dangerous enemies of the United States and forced to ceasetheir support by any means necessary.

Lawmakers and foreign Heads of State have voiced many valid concerns

about the preemptive strategy utilized in the War On Terror. One of themost valid concerns is the message that is being sent to othercountries. The fear is that rogue nations may attack weaker nations underthe guise of stopping terrorism. Many Americans believe that these strikesfuel the already growing hatred of Americans throughout the world.Although this has been the case in some instances, manycitizens of thecountries where The United States has ousted terrorist regimes areextremely grateful to be rid of their tyrannical dictators.

Any action that is taken will most definitely be unpopular to some people.

Whether we like it or not, America is a leader in todays world andsometimes, for the good of society, leaders have to do things that are notalways popular. We might make some enemies in the process and we mayhave to suffer some economic consequences. But in the end America musttake the lead and do what is ultimately right.Andrew Lyon, Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

26


44/113

How America Saved (Or Destroyed) the WorldBy Lindsay Blazin

Somerset Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

Preemption has become a buzzword since the brutal attacks of September11th. It seems as though every American has been forced to consider themorality of waging war against Iraq under the pretense of the eliminationof weapons of mass destruction. The issue has been fiercely debated innewspapers, television shows, and on the floor of Congress. Keyquestions have arisen from the countless hours of arguing: When is itokay to strike preemptively? How will policies of preemption affectAmerica and the rest of the world? Most importantly, who can be trusted

to make these decisions?

America has been thrust into a position of world leadership either willinglyor otherwise. Our economic plans are reflected across the world and ourfreedoms are coveted by citizens of more restrictivenations. Consequently, the decision we make in regards to preemptivedoctrine will not be solitary and unimportant. On the contrary, theexample set by America on this volatile and controversial issue will berepeated in many parts of the world. With this in mind, we must treadcarefully when entering the territory of preemption; there will be no going

back.

There are several points made in favor of preemption. Many of these areseeded in fear. For example, many people fear another attack like 9/11 andare willing to go to great lengths to avoid another day like that one. Stillothers argue that had doctrines of preemption been in place in the years preceding World War II, Hitler would have been unable [to rise] topower. While these fears are completely valid, nations do not thrive underlegislated paranoia.

Other supporters of preemption dredge up facts and figures from yearsgone by hoping that history will strengthen their case. It is true that manyrespected Presidents believed strongly in preemptive policies, even theDemocrats. Using history as a guide is perfectly acceptable and evenconducive to producing educated and aware citizens. However, growingnations cannot make new policies by simply copying doctrines that workedin the past. If America operated on such a system slavery would be in tact

27


45/113

and women would still be shockingly silent. Obviously, the past is notalways the greatest teacher.

The drawbacks of preemption seem evident to me. From a strictly

economic standpoint, preemption is expensive. To go traipsing around theworld chasing after every Middle Easternerwould be seriously damagingto the already mounting government debt. Also, a serious risk is posed inthis situation by what law enforcement officials would call copycats: othernations that adopt a similar doctrine of preemption at some point in thefuture. Imagine what the world would be like if we all thought preemptively. America would receive reports about terrorist activity inIran and begin planning a preemptive strike against that nation. In themeantime, Iran finds out about our plans of attack and begins takingpreemptive measures against [us]. And so it continues like that annoying

riddle. Which didcome first?

Another negative side effect of preemption is the threat of worlddomination. Globally, Americanization is something to be significantlyfeared. For reasons yet unknown, many nations around the world seem todislike, or even despise the American way of life. No matter howridiculous it seems we cannot write off the concerns of other nationswithout thoughtful consideration. That would be horribly elitist andcertainly not American. It would also be un-American to force our way oflife on any other nation whether they could use the help or not. Certainly

we would never want to impose like that.

So what, then, is a nation to do? Should we sit on our hands while othercountries plan our decline? Or should we attack blindly on little more thana hunch and hope our gamble wont result in disaster? The answer,obviously, lies in the middle of these two extremes. Nobody would suggestthat our government ignore evidence of terrorist activity and wait for theother Husseins and Bin Ladens of the world to strike us down. Such anidea is ridiculous and completely opposed [to] the bravery and proactiveattitude we Americans hold in such high esteem. What must be recognized

and considered is that overzealous ideals and impatience can be just asdetrimental to the United States as hesitation and inactivity.

I believe that the only way a doctrine of preemption can be effectivelyenacted in America is through the successful collection of information byfederal agencies created to do just that. Taking action when presented withreliable evidence of clear and present danger is not only acceptable to but

28


46/113

also demanded by the American people. At this point, I would suggest thatwe bow graciously out of Iraq and invest the money we would lose thereover the next decade in more fruitful endeavors. One such endeavor would be co-sponsoring an international organization created to gatherinformation related to the elimination of terrorism worldwide. If thatorganization were properly funded I believe it would prove surprisinglycapable of reliably reporting terrorism to the sponsoring nations. Withtrustworthy information, preemptive attacks would go virtuallyunquestioned. Those attacks would be even more acceptable to the globalcommunity if they were supported by a number of nations, not just theUnited States.

In conclusion, preemption cannot be carried out on a whim. Time must betaken to hash out every issue in this mightily complicated debate. Mostimportantly, the people of America must be given the opportunity to beheard on this critical point. My grandchildren will experience the effects ofthis doctrine and the farthest reaches of the globe will feel itsaftershocks. As previously stated, we must tread carefully. The future ofthe world really does lie in our hands.

29


47/113

Prevent Preemption in Modern SocietyBy Levi Hahn

Somerset Area Senior High, Somerset, Pennsylvania

September 11th marked a time in American and global history that hasforever changed the way governments, particularly the United Statesgovernment, view the policy of preemption. Many believe that th

teens speak out on war: preemption or prevention? how governments have prevented war in the past and...

Documents