Is the Bush doctrine one of preemption or prevention? Why is this distinction important?
The bush doctrine is more prevention than preemption. His speech was more about prevention. He made a statement that we must prevent terrorisms and regimes weapons from threatening the United States and the world. He claimed that we can’t sit back and wait for them to attack us again. We must not wait and give them the chance to take us down. We should make them fear us. He was determined to prevent another terrorist attack to the United States. Bush considers the 9/11 attack as a potential threat. It was capable of happening again. He wanted to eliminate a possible future threat. Based on his interpretations, I feel that he wanted the nation to prepare just in case they attack us. Preemption and prevention have two different meanings, so it’s important to know the difference. Preemptive attack is based on the belief that the enemy will attack in the future or a fight will occur, and it’s better to strike them first before they attack us. For example, we beat the opponents to the punch and attack them first. It has been mentioned that preemptive attack brings less damage when we attack them first. On the other hand, preventive is we don’t strike first but we get ready to fight. Bush’s perceptive was more like it’s better to destroy them now than waiting on them to attack us and having to deal with it. I believe it’s essential that we know the difference. Throughout his speech, I think Bush emphasized more on prevention than preemption.