http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0703040265mar04,1,5377213.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hedFirst strike
Candidates ought to be clear about their position on pre-emptive war
By Robert Schmuhl. Robert Schmuhl is Annenberg-Joyce Professor of American Studies and Journalism at the University of Notre Dame and author of "In So Many Words: Arguments and Adventures."
Published March 4, 2007
As rhetorical firefights over Iraq keep breaking out among the 2008 presidential candidates, the controversial policy that produced the war seems strangely distant from the campaign battlefield.
The Bush Doctrine, formulated after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, endorsed pre-emptive war as an option for dealing with potential enemies. But the past four years in Iraq have been a case study of the unintended consequences of the doctrine's aggressive approach.
Rather than sniping at each other about past statements or votes on Iraq, presidential candidates--Democratic and Republican alike--should be taking a stand on the policy of pre-emption. Will the nation's next president adopt a strike-first strategy?
The Bush Doctrine shifted American foreign policy from its Cold War emphasis on containment and deterrence to a more activist, assertive approach. Domestically, the new stance seemed a tough-minded response to terrorist threats. Internationally, U.S. strategy was perceived as superpower saber rattling with dangerous and unforeseen implications.
Previous presidents have acted pre-emptively. Lyndon Johnson did so in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Ronald Reagan in Grenada in 1983. But the Bush Doctrine is different in its unprecedented threat of military action and its procedural merging of pre-emptive and preventive war into indistinguishable activities.