Reply #72: No and Yes [View All]

[HPLeft]

No, in 99% of cases - and definitely no in the case of Hussein. But that doesn't mean that I think it would have been a good idea to cut Hussein a lot of slack. Bush would have been right if he had used the threat of force to get the best deal involving a return of the inspectors as he could manage. But, actually going in without having built international consensus was a terrible idea - and a terrible financial and human drain on our nation. Which is why having a President who actually knows what war is about is generally a good idea, all things being equal.

That said, if we could produce relatively incontrovertable evidence that someone was about launch an attack on the United States, I'd have no problem with pre-emption. But, unfortunately, the politicans and military/civilian leaders who are drawn to the idea of pre-emption are probably congentially reckless to begin with, and would likely use it an unskillful way. And with the Bush Administration having completely compromised our intelligence services, it is going to be many years before anyone trusts them to the degree that would be required for pre-emption to be a viable option. As someone else remarked a few months back, the neo-con pre-emption strategy died in Iraq. After this disaster, the concept has zero credibility.