Pre-emption. That’s the key word these days especially from the U.S. ‘Get them before they get us’.
Generally, it’s used in reference to states that are a threat to whomever and are preparing to, or are thought ready, to strike out militarily.
So, with that in mind, what would happen if Iraq took pre-emptive action against the U.S./U.K. forces currently massing on Iraq’s borders right now? Would it be wrong?
Don’t forget we’re talking pre-emption here, a key Bush doctrine these days. When the threat is sufficient, strike!
Under imminent threat and boxed in, pre-emption seems plausible.
After all, if you reverse the roles and the U.S. were near surrounded and boxed in, they wouldn’t hesitate to strike pre-emptively.
So why not Iraq?
Of course, if it did happen the U.S. would hit back with full force and claim to be the injured party.
‘Well they struck first!’ Bush’s white house rep would smugly say when explaining the following decimation and take over of Iraq.
In fact, can you imagine for a second that if Iraq were America and vice-versa that Bush’s cronies wouldn’t act? With all the threatening language and sabre-rattling that has reverberated through the U.N. and beyond, if it were directed at the U.S. you just know that they’d cry foul.
“I told you the world hated us Mr President.” Donald ‘Rummy’ Rumsfeld would mumble in Dubya’s ear. “Shall I get the Nukes ready?”
When it comes to U.S. foreign policy there’s one rule for them and another for the rest of us. ‘Don’t do as we do, do as we say!’
For any sort of peace to prevail it must stop. Otherwise, peace will become a passive cliché. Always spoken but never put into action.
Show your support for the Stop the War effort, sign a petition, write a letter to your MP, join a local group and come to the national demo on Feb 15th in London.
“We are all human, it’s time to prove it!”