Aris wrote:Let's take this a little further. At the moment, the US' nuclear arsenal and long range missiles are pointed at specific targets. Obviously, these targeted nations thus face an obvious and imminent threat, right? And the US is well known for invading and occupying other countries, right? So they have the right to nuke the US, right?
Of course. But then they face retaliation. A balance of such power is what stabilized the cold war for so long.
A preferable solution is for both sides is to negotiate a solution, but if a rogue group takes action and blows up buildings, then an escalation begins.
In the case of balanced powers, the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction proved sufficient to maintain the balance, but when a hyperpower is sees that maintaining the status quo results in attacks, it seems logical to break the status quo. That leaves it with two choices; acceed to demands, or attack strategically.
Aris wrote:See how stupid it is to say that you have the right to attack obvious and imminent threats? Or is pre-emption something that only Americans think they have the right to do?
You anticipated my answer incorrectly. No, it is not stupid to say that you have the right to attack obvious and imminent threats. This is survival it its most basic level.
Terrorists attacked the US, and aspects of middle eastern culture created those terrorists. It's only reasonable for the US to want to change the culture in such a way as to minimize future threat. The only question remaining is how best to do it. Clearly, the Bush administration has decided that the best way is to attack strategic targets with long term goals in mind.
There are other methods of course. Each one fraught with pitfalls and potential. The main thing I can observe about the Bush doctrine is that it's simple, not elegant, and certainly not guaranteed to succeed, but quite easy for opponents to understand.
