Preemptive War Helps Keep the Peace—Preventive War Needlessly Destroys It

[rangerrebew]

Preemptive War Helps Keep the Peace—Preventive War Needlessly Destroys It
.
By Daniel L. Davis
May 31, 2019


In the wake of Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign, the Pentagon drew up plans to send 120,000 U.S. soldiers to the Middle East should Iran lash out in any way, potentially including restarting their nuclear program. Some claim restarting this program and working toward this weapons capability would merit a military strike, the president's top national security advisor among them. This is "preventive" war, it's the same foolish thinking that was used to justify the Iraq war, and it's terrible for America and our friends and allies in the region.

Unlike “preemptive” war—launching a first strike to forestall an actual or imminent attack, a critical component of U.S. deterrence—going to war merely to destroy the weapons of another nation we don’t care for (even absent any intent to use it against the U.S.) is a dangerously low threshold for using military force. And it’s all too common in establishment thinking.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2019/05/31/preemptive_war_helps_keep_the_peacepreventive_war_needlessly_destroys_it_114467.html

[rangerrebew]

Churchill had a variant of this when he noted it is better to strike when the costs are low rather than wait until they become enormous.

[Fishrrman]

This is why we should have struck both North Korea and Iran years ago.

The costs of stopping them -today- have become much higher.