Well, the Bush-war resolution has been signed. For the purpose of argument I think this preemptive war is an act taken by a bunch of cowards. Sure we would like for our world to be secure and there are bad guys in power that we would like to stop.

But a preemptive war becomes the slipperiest of moral slopes. An act of war for mere political expediency carries a terrible moral weight. War is regrettable and should be carried out only at the extremity of self-defense. Basically in human intercourse it is the ability to defend oneself that assures peace. When one gives up or loses that ability violence or aggression becomes profitable to one’s adversaries. The surest way to stop terror is to effectively destroy terrorists. The surest way to contain the adventurism of belligerent nations is to demonstrate the willingness and ability to respond destructively against belligerent acts. Its only when they think they might get away it do nations commit belligerent acts. I think Saddam Hussein really believed that he could get away with the occupation of Kuwait. If we make it clear that a belligerent act on his part using nuclear weapons would be terminal for him and his regime, he would abandon them.

But we are cowards. We are unwilling to risk the damage that would come if Saddam were to actually use a nuclear weapon. Such an event would remove all impediments to wiping him out because it would be an unequivocal act of self-defense. Even our worst enemy could not criticize us. Furthermore, if we were able to show restraint by doing the job by not responding in kind, our moral reputation among nations would be enhanced. But instead of settling the responsibility of such a calamity squarely upon the shoulders of Saddam, our cowardice and fear leads us to preempt. We are in a sense saying, since we are afraid to allow Saddam to make the choice and we must make it for him.

While some may think that we are showing the world how tough we are, we are actually proving to the world how easy it is for us to cast aside our scruples when we are frightened. We made a mistake (as seen by hindsight) when we dropped our pressure on Saddam after he kicked out the inspectors. The Clinton administration did this but the opposition was too worried at the time about who was in his pants to care about the lapse in Saddam-control. Now we have a more frightening Saddam but little more hard evidence to substantiate that fear. And we have a choice. Do we wait for Saddam to show his hand while doing everything short of war to hinder his capabilities and find out more about them? Or do we initiate a military conflict?

With option 1 we continue to play by the rules of the international order and we bolster that this big guy on the playground can be expected to behave in an ethical fashion despite his overpowering strength. If Saddam does undertake any adventurism we would be able to use our strength against him without damaging international goodwill. Nations of all stripes will be more inclined to work with us on problems rather than against us because we demonstrate that we can hold our power in check. The downside to this is the potential havoc Saddam may wreak before we are able to take him out.

With option 2 we show that our nation is, indeed, a bully on the playground. We will do what we darn well please, when we please. Not only does this put all the responsibility on our shoulders when we do act, we must also take responsibility for those times when we don’t act. If we as a superpower have an appearance of playing favorites (such as with Israel) then we are legitimized as targets by those that oppose our clients. Not only that it demonstrates that we can’t be trusted to avoid our own adventurism when it suits us. We may feel more secure that way over the short term but the insecurity that other nations feel will make life more difficult for us in the long term. That insecurity will make it easier for our enemies to find places of refuge and support.
And regrettably we have chosen option 2.