GranolaBox

With all the controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, the comparisons to Vietnam are numerous, despite the Bush administration’s attempts to deny all connections between the two conflicts. One thing that differentiates Iraq from Vietnam however, is President Bush’s doctrine of the “pre-emptive strike.” The use of the pre-emptive strike goes far back into American history to the American acquisition of Spanish Florida in the early 19th century.

This use of the “might” might make right doctrine is nothing new. In the early 1800’s, the United States had already set the machinery in motion for hemispheric hegemony. After buying Louisiana in 1803, British Canada and Spanish Florida were seen as obstacles to our “Manifest Destiny,” the idea that the United States was destined by God to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain. The official cause of the war was the British impressment of American sailors. The other reason for going to war was the British practice of interfering with American trade overseas, but the French were doing that too. The French avoided our dubious wrath by signing an agreement with President James Madison, in which Napoleon agreed to stop interfering with our trade and then pretty much ignoring the promise.

The impressments of the American sailors and interference in trade were flimsy excuses for the Americans to attempt to add to their rapidly expanding borders. Somehow, it followed that conquering Canada might be a logical way to avenge the loss of these sailors. The American military justified the attack on Canada, claiming that the attack on Canada was necessary, as Canada could be used as a launching point for the British forces. The Canadians, with some help from the British and a failed strategy on the part of the Americans, managed to repel the southern invaders.

The war of 1812 wasn’t a complete failure however. The American forces used the war, and the loose alliance between the British and Native Americans as a justification for waging all out war against the original occupants of much of the South. Shortly after the dust settled from the war, the United States launched an all-out war with the Seminoles for control of Georgia.

General Andrew Jackson, operating on the assumption that Spanish Florida might have been a haven for various outlaws and renegade Seminoles who might have been planning to attack Georgia, pursued these groups into Florida. Some of these groups who might have attacked the United States were subdued, but Jackson and President James Monroe didn’t want to stop there.

The pursuit of the outlaws and Seminoles turned into an invasion when Jackson found that there was a very nominal Spanish presence in Florida. Jackson then began attacking and taking over Spanish forts. With such a skeleton force in Spain, the Americans reasoned, Spain might not be able to control the rogue elements in Spain that may have posed a threat to American security. Despite vehement protests from Monroe’s cabinet and calls for Jackson’s immediate dismissal, the American troops remained in Florida.

Secretary of State John Quincy Adams seized the moment and used the American presence to apply diplomatic leverage to an already substantially weakened Spanish empire. In 1819, Adams and Spanish foreign minister Luis de Onis agreed that the U.S. would pay $5 million for East and West Florida and relinquished some claims in parts of Texas.

The parallels between our early moves toward hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and our new efforts to establish hegemony in the Middle East through the Bush administration are many.

Originally, the rationale for war against Iraq was President Bush’s insistence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Despite having evidence that was deliberately misleading at worst and flimsy at best, Bush convinced the American Congress, (but not most of the rest of the world) to invade Iraq. Bottom line: they might have had weapons of mass destruction, and might have used them against our allies, or the United States.

Given the absence of any such weapons of mass destruction, the rationale for the invasion then switched focus to Al Qaeda. Although Saddam Hussein had a long history of killing Islamic Fundamentalist who were spiritually, if not officially aligned with Al Qaeda, the Bush administration asserted over and over again, without substantial proof, that Iraq might have been operating as a safe haven for Al Qaeda terrorists, who then might have used Iraq as a base of operations for a future attack.

Having insinuated the American armed forces into Iraq, and taken down its government, however corrupt, Iraq is now in a state of chaos. Iraqi forces loyal to the government are few and far between. Thus, like Spanish Florida almost two centuries ago, we have no choice but to stay to maintain law and order, because the Iraqis might not be able to maintain law and order on their own.

Despite an overwhelming disapproval rating for his handling of the war in Iraq, and the near complete lack of success on the part of the American forces, the Bush administration continues to push its agenda of hegemony. When the policy is questioned, Bush and his supporters paint their critics as unpatriotic souls who are further endangering the lives of American soldiers, much like the nationalist fervor that drowned out the criticism to the War of 1812 and the invasion of Spanish Florida.

Haven’t Bush and the Neo-Cons learned over nearly two centuries that the pre-emptive strike is both a morally and strategically bankrupt policy? Apparently not. Apparently, they’ve accepted the idea that might, might make right.

Comment!

Are pre-emptive strikes necessary to protect our nation?

Do other countries use pre-emptive strikes as often as the US does?

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Vietnam, pre-emptive strike, Manifest Destiny, James Madison, Napoleon, Seminoles, Andrew Jackson, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Luis de Onis, weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, War of 1812, Neo-Cons

Filed under: History, Politics on March 25th, 2007