by Donald Rosenberry

Created on: May 16, 2009   Last Updated: May 19, 2009

It is unreasonable to think that the use of a preemptive strike will win freedom for a people. The argument that a preemptive strike is necessary to stop a country from abusing or killing its people leaves one with results which belie the purported use. A preemptive strike means violating the sovereignty of a foreign nation. Every war has begun with the factions instigating the violence convinced it has the legal and moral right to do so. The fact that the US has used a preemptive strike in Iraq yet did not do so in Rwanda reveals that the true purpose of pre-emptive strikes is to use the military arm of power to coerce another nation into following ones desire, or to gain access or control of a national strategic interest. In Iraq's case, that would be access to the oil reserves and the country's strategic location. The Israelis used a preemptive strike against Syria for the specific purpose of destroying a missile cache which could be used against Israel. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Israel's action, the motivation was to eliminate the missile cache. Preemptive strikes can be used for individual freedoms, but only in the case of hostage rescue and, rarely political prisoner release.

The US experience in Iraq demonstrates quite well that freedom from tyranny is not the same as freedom for a people. National freedom requires a specific focus on the civil liberties and rights of the people. We have seen the attempt, as the US proposed doing in Iraq, to separate the nation based on cultural and religious lines, and it resulted in excessive human tragedy in Yugoslavia, and Rwanda. The kind of freedom that allows a nation to continue as a peaceful group has to be desired, sought and often fought for by the people themselves. There are no examples of freedom being forced on a nation, so the so called "exit strategy" problem with Iraq has to be seen for what it really is; a means to extract fighting forces from a conquered nation. The "shock and awe" removed a tyrant, there is no question about that nor is there any question most of the world is better off for it.

But it is folly to think by removing the tyrant somehow freedom will spring out. The Iraqi people often speak of the situation is less melodramatic roles, noted that while Hussein was in power, there was at least a fabric of stability for the vast majority of the population. Had the people themselves removed Hussein, the resulting political scenario would likely be confused but a less catastrophically violent. Even military overthrow of a nation can eventually result in a transition to a civil free nation. That requires the efforts and sometimes acquiescence of the nation as a whole. South Korea has demonstrated that, as has Thailand. Neither has the same kind of nation as the US, and their histories have dictated the paths they have chosen. In both cases however, there is a nation state with control, authority and a growing economy. Neither is perfect, there are those who would argue the same for the United States, but freedom is a process requiring constant care and attention, and can only result from the will of a people.

Learn more about this author, Donald Rosenberry.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.