Shiva HassanzadehProfessor AshkenasEnglish 11110 December 2007Effects of Waging a Preemptive War:The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preemptive attack on the United States Pacific Fleet base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii by the Japanese Navy, on the morning of Sunday, December 7, 1941, resulting in the United States becoming involved in World War II. When the war ended the United States would not accept legitimacy of Japanese claims of “preemption” as a justification for the strike on Pearl Harbor. Sixty-six years later, for President Bush and his administration, if they would be consistent, there was nothing wrong in what the Japanese did on December 7, 1941. For the rest of us, that attack on Pearl Harbor remains, according to President Roosevelt, "a day of infamy." Preemptive war was not legitimate for the Japanese in 1941, and it is not legitimate today. Any policy that allows for preemptive war to promote national interests has to be considered criminal, for the same reasons as was the attack on Pearl Harbor. By this new doctrine of pre-emptive war, the president alone may start a war against any nation at any time, and with no more forewarning than preceded the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This method that the administration has chosen to deal with terrorism has major flaws that will eventually backfire.Using preemptive war as a strategy against terrorism is very risky because of the enemies it could create against us. Zbigniew Brzezinski claims that by going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan “would then plunge America into a protracted conflict spanning Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and perhaps also Pakistan.” I believe that this strategy ofpreemption is bound to backfire and turn more nations against us than we can handle. If we did not wage this preemptive war in Iraq, we may not have forced Iran to want to go to war with us. According to David Ignatius, Iran is basically waiting for the United States to attack so that Iran can “taunt them [the U.S.] into starting a war they can’t finish.” He argues that the United States would only be falling into another “trap” if they wage another preemptive war on Iran because the United States’ military is already occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel as if waging one preemptive war threw us into a cycle of many wars. We have shown to only create more enemies by invading countries that harbor terrorists in anattempt to prevent terrorism. The creation of more enemies highly increases chances of going to more wars and being attacked. The Bush administration should stop hoping that other nations that dislike us will eventually fear us because as Ignatius points out, other nations such as Iran want us to attack because they know our military is weakened. The administration claims that the preemptive war doctrine will not lead us into a future filledwith wars, but they have not been able to prove their claim, as we are on the brink of another war with Iran. Since the administration’s declaration of war on Iraq has turned a good chunk of the Middle East against us, we are losing track of our enemies. According to Bruce Hoffman, “we can’t win if we don’t know the enemy.” If the United States is not entirely sure which nations support it and which are against it or what population in Iraq is its enemy, how does it expect to defeat the unknown? Zbigniew Brzezenski also argues that the entire “war on terror” does not make sense because “terrorism is not an enemy.” Waging a preemptive war has so far turned other countries against the United States,increased the nation’s chances of more preemptive wars with its new enemies, and created confusion about who the United States is actually fighting against. If the administration still believes the preemptive war doctrine will prevent and or end terrorism, they are mistaken. I would really like to see the administration stop focusing onways to wage wars in order to preserve stability in our country, while focusing on ways toachieve authentic peace without war. The United States can no longer afford to confuse peace with passivity. Authentic peace is no more passive than war. Like war, it calls for discipline, intelligence and strength of character, though it calls also for higher principles. If the United States is serious about peace, then it must work for it as seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as it would prepare for war. Berry Wendell argues that the world has been almost constantly at war since the attack on Pearl Harbor. He also states that none of these wars have brought the world to peace (586). I believe he is absolutely correct because if any ofthe wars brought any sense of long-term peace, the United States would not be waging preemptive wars in the Middle East. Wendell then goes on to explain how a nation shouldgo about achieving peace and he believes that our current strategy, waging “war to end war,” is not an efficient method (586). Also, according to Eliza Griswold’s poem “Buying Rations in Kabul,” there is no efficient way to maintain peace by “force” because that would just be another way of saying war (591). It seems to me that the thought of achieving peace without war has not even crossed the minds of the current administration. If it had then they would not be threatening to wage another preemptive war on Iran. However, it makes no sense for them to use the same strategy they used inIraq because it proved to be disastrous. The United States has created more ciaos than it has peace by waging a preemptive war. By the current administration waging a preemptive war in Iraq, it shows to the world how inconsiderate the United States can be. The Bush administration failed to attempt to understand the nation’s enemies before attacking them. Brzezinski also suggests that Bush and his administration simply brainwashed the United States into believing all the claims they made about terrorists in Iraq. Brzezinski uses the word “Islamophobia” to explain how the Bush administration “stimulated the paranoia.” The administration spread Islamophobia to gain support for the preemptive war it is waging inIraq. This shows that the administration jumped to conclusions about all Islamic people and was unable to approach the problem of terrorism in any other way other than war because of their ignorance. As we have witnessed throughout history, waging a war for purposes of national interest is a crime. The Bush administration