Empereur.com

          American Foreign Policy (dead or alive)

 The policy of preemptive vs. containment

Preemptive policy has few special characteristics. Above all, it assumes that the potential enemy is unwilling to negotiate through diplomatic means, nor will it pursue a conflict resolution with peaceful means. Secondly, it assumes that militarily, the potential enemy will strike first with devastating forces. Therefore, by attacking the enemy first, one avoids the consequence of being humiliated, defeated or capitulated militarily. Sun Tzu, in the Art of War clearly explained its concept and how should it be conducted.  

The Containment on the other hand, was a strategy concept engaged by the United States during the Cold War aimed at halting Soviet Union’s expansion through American military power, economic wealth, and diplomatic influence.

One could argue that preemptive attack embraces the theory of Cult of Offensive and Containment to the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). The Cult of the Offensive is a belief of strategic analysis before WWI that the party which attacked first would win, encouraging immediate mobilization and attack in case of a crisis. The consequence was disastrous for all.

The MAD concept during the Cold War was a different case. Though similar in terms of assumption - the very enemy will streak first, yet both forces, the US and the USSR, equivalent nuclear powers, are capable of second strike after being attacked. Hence, a preemptive strike against one is considered as losing moves due to the deadly secondly strike of the other. As a result, preemptive policy could only be used against a weaker enemy that does not have a capability of second strike, or resistance against one’s sudden strike. Finally, the very purpose of preemptive attack is a complete elimination of one’s enemy, militarily and politically. 

Therefore, containment during the Cold War was the appropriate policy for the US administration, since both the US and the USSR understood a direct confrontation is the end for the world. As a result, politically, the US wasn’t actively pursuing a policy of defeating the Soviet Union, but assumed a natural death of the latter, consistent with Kennan’s vision.    

Thus, one might argue that the preemptive thinking occurs when one is unrestrained politically and militarily. This understanding is not entirely correct. First, preemptive strike occurs between antagonists. When Japan attacked China, German attacked Poland, the US attacked Panama though suddenly, it was not preemptive, because neither China, Poland nor Panama were threatening the security of the aggressors. These wars were engaged based on a closer approach to The Cult of the Offensive, attack first is the wining move.

As far as the current American administration is concerned, its current strategic policy is aiming on both fronts, defensive and offensive. The National Missile Defense System (NMD) is defensive oriented, protecting the Home Land from deadly foreign missile attack. The NMD might still be viewed as a part of the Containment Policy, with the Russia, China, or North Korea as potential aggressors.

The containment and preemptive, though designed to protect American lives, differ in terms of how the future US military strategy and foreign policy should be conducted.

Preemptive strategy involves prevention; it embraces the idea of to attack first before being attacked. The dilemma with preemption is that it is very much imperialistic oriented, for it tries to deter major conflict but pursues an imperial course, the enterprise of hegemony.

In history, preemption always occurred during certain stage of empire building. The course of empire building has two phases, first comes the reaction to direct threats to nation’s integrity from external attack. Then comes further expansion, anticipating hypothetical threats to traditional national security concerns. Inadvertently, an empire is created.

Much like what we are experiencing today in America, in the late seventeenth century Great Britain, two schools of thoughts - the Whigs and Tories, battled for the vision of Great Britain’s place in the world.[1] The Whigs’ first position was that there would be time enough to resist a threat, when and if the threat presented itself. There was no need to fight hypothetical dangers based on what some country might do later on. Great Britain should only engage itself to maintain the balance of power. The Tories believed on the other hand, that the main duty was to shape and not simply protect the balance of power. Subsequently, though their positions shifted, the controversial vision remained.

So America, at the current moment, has clearly entered the second stage of empire building. This argument could not be better elucidated if we compare between a historical period; when Roman Empire engaged wars against the city of Carthage, with American invasion of Iraq during the ‘Second Persian Gulf War.’

First of all, there is a strong resemblance in terms of foreign policy concept. Polybius explained to Queen Tauta’s Illyricum in 230 BC about the value of a pretext for going to war that allowed Rome not to appear the aggressor, but rather the defender of its Italian allies. One of the Roman ambassadors explained to the Queen why Rome punishes the injustices done to individuals and helping the victims of injustice.[2] This argument for military engagement is similar to Bush’s diplomatic speeches. The ultimate objective for both is the same, to become the Gendarme of the world by defending one’s own as well as allies’ security, and by doing so, to preserve one’s military preeminence. 

Secondly, it is about the alliance building. The Roman Empire carefully built a web of alliances, which permitted the Roman Empire to grow and its influence to expand. The Roman military force and alliance were built with diverse people. First of all, by Latin tribes who were similar to the Romans, then by non-Latin tribes in Italy, and finally by other ‘Barbarians.’ Eventually, all of them were Romanized and received the full Roman franchise, the civitas optimo iure. 

The US did the same thing. The American military alliance, in addition to diplomatic one is first of all made of Anglo countries, including the Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Then it is composed by diverse European countries under the NATO alliance, finally it is with ‘Non – White’ strategic partners, such as Japan, Korea, and non-permanent allies such as Somalia (during the Cold War). Eventually all of them become democracies, after WWII and the Cold War, except for numbered Asian and African allies.

 Though by principal, the Roman Empire viewed the other as equal, and signed foedus aequum – equal theaty, but according to historians, it was not true in practice. The all point behind this alliance was to make Rome’s allies to fallow Rome’s policy, including considering Rome’s friends and enemies as their own.

 American is exceptional, at least according to American hawks. Since the end of WWII, no American allies enjoyed the same statues as the US has, nor were treated equally, though in theory, all democracies, and nation states are equal. Moreover, Washington expects all allies to fallow its foreign policy guide line.

 Finally, the fate of Carthage resembles astonishingly to Iraq’s one. After the end of the Second Punic War, Carthage agreed, in exchange for its sovereignty, to pay heavy economic reparations for breaking the ceasefire. Moreover, Carthage surrendered its navy, returned all prisoners of war to Rome, and agreed not to engage into conflict without specific permission from Rome. These conditions were purposely designed to make Carthage both militarily and economically vulnerable, in exchange, Romans evacuated Africa.  

 But that was not enough. The Romans were incited later by the speeches of the censor Cato the Elder, who demanded “Delenda est Carthago” (Carthage must be destroyed) because Carthage could be a danger to Rome again. So Roman troops led by Scipio the Younger preemptively attacked and totally destroyed the potential threat – Carthage in the Third Punic War (149-146).

 In the case of Iraq, after the unsuccessful invasion of Kuwait, not only Iraqi army was queasily wipe out,  but Saddam Hussein, in order to preserve its power agreed to all American conditions, including to withdrew from Kuwait, to return American war prisoners, to let UN inspector come in, and to destroy all WMD weapons. Economically, sanction was subsequently impose on Iraq, making Iraq both militarily and economically weak and vulnerable. A decade later, Iraq was pointed out by hawkish American policy makers as a major potential threat to American national security, without providing any convincing prove for such argument, American troops invaded Iraq, and overthrown its leader -Hussein. 

 Consequently, with all those resemblance to historical occurrences, one can not refute the argument that the United States is currently engaging into a dangerous enterprise of empire building.

Finally, the most recent case of preemptive attack could be traced to the Black Continent.

In 1998, the Democratic Republic of Congo was preemptively invaded by a coalition force from Rwanda and Uganda. The cause being, after his inauguration, President Laurent Kabila suddenly announced on July 14, 1997 that he is inviting the Rwandan soldiers, which help him to conquer the country to leave. Within 24 hours, Rwandan military advisers were being bundled out. Under such circumstance, the Rwandans and Ugandans, viewed Kabila as a potential threat to their preeminence in the Central Africa, thus preemptively attacked the newly establish country with intention to overthrow Kabila.  

Note from the author:

This is a draft paper; its quality is ‘ok.’  If you liked it, please leave me a note by email, if not, may be it is about time to make your own.

PS. And don't tell me your need my help for your high school paper because you are only 12.