Preemptive Strikes

Overview: I will be using the theory of utilitarianism to inform what the topic means when it refers to moral justification. An act has utility if it produces the most good, or is very likely to do so. Ethical utilitarians, like Bentham and Singer, believe that morality relies of utility. After all, how can an act be moral if it does not produce good consequences? Additionally, I would posit that a utilitarian calculus is the only viable mechanism for weighing this round as it is the only means through which a government can effectively operate. A government must act on a cost-benefit analysis, or risk endangering it self-interests, or becoming paralyzed by concern for moral injunctions. Thus, if an act produces the greatest good for the greatest number, it is morally justified. Contention One: Change comes best from within, not from without. According to foreign policy expert Fouad Pervez, "The events we have witnessed in Egypt during the past three weeks contain some lessons we should think about. The first lesson is: significant changes in a country's political system can best be brought about by the people of that country, not by outsiders. A revolution was accomplished by the efforts of the thousands of young Egyptians who were persistent in their demands, who were mature and peaceful, reacting with restraint to provocations, and who showed Mubarak and the army that they would not give up until he was gone. " Middle East Correspondent James Taub furthers: ""the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt show that Bush massively overestimated America's influence. In 2004 and 2005, he tried to push Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to hold free and fair elections; Mubarak pushed back, and Bush largely relented. Then Obama exchanged the ringing language of democracy for the muted discourse of "engagement" -- and the Egyptian people took to the streets and overthrew their tyrant". In such a setting, "reform" is simply another instrument for maintaining authority. Change can only come from below, as a demand: In Egypt and Tunisia, the people disarmed the tyrant's mechanism of control by standing up to the clubs, tear gas canisters and even bullets of the security forces. " Prof. Paul Di Stefano, citing philosopher J. S Mill, observes, "Self-determination, facilitated by non-intervention, maintains moral value because "it is only within states that men and women can build a political community they can call their own. " Alluding to its instrumental value, Mill writes, "When a people has had the misfortune to be ruled by a government under which the feelings and the virtues needful for maintaining freedom could not develop themselves, it is during an arduous struggle to become free by their own efforts [author"s emphasis] that these feelings and virtues have the best chance of springing up. Freedom gained through the paternalistic intervention of outsiders is an ephemeral imposition devoid of lasting intrinsic or instrumental value. An interventionist approach denies the possession of autonomous agency to those who are "assisted. " Therefore, the principle of self-determination acts as a safeguard against foreign imperialism and hegemony. Foreigners cannot know what is best for a society; only a state"s own denizens possess such knowledge. " Contention Two: Intervention backfires. Prof. Jean Bricmont contends, "Humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, which are probably the largest in recent decades, are mainly due to foreign interventions (mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the humanitarian interventions, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive "secret" US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized. " Contention Three: Preemptive strikes lead to war and cyclical violence. Prof. Frederick Shuman notes, "Since other powers feeling themselves threatened by an expanding power, they will at some point resist its further aggrandizement; relentless pursuit of power spells war-which is the ultimate negation of all morality. But relentless pursuit of ethical ideals"also spells war, since we live in a world of inescapable diversity in which"formidable powers can always be counted upon to reject"any particular definition of virtue sought to be imposed upon them by the power of others. " According to Dr. Steven Murdoch, "weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists and rogue nations change the self-defense analysis. In a world with these catastrophic weapons, they believe that countries should be allowed to strike well before a hostile enemy actually attacks. But how far these experts are willing to stray from a strict rule of self-defense, which requires actual enemy attack, turns upon what they emphasize. Some lawyers worry that a lower threshold for self-defense interventions, decided upon unilaterally, will impinge on nations" sovereignty and perhaps increase cycles of violence. " Contention Four: Not initiating war is beneficial; pacifism is good. Prof. Andrew Alexandra, who explains pacifism to mean the non-initiation of war, states: "war as a political institution consists not simply of episodes of armed conflict between states and the rules and norms governing such conflicts, but also the whole complex of activities and organization that lead up to and make possible such episodes. It is the institution of war in this comprehensive sense to which the pacifist is opposed: it follows that the peace that the pacifist desires is not simply the absence of fighting, but rather the dissolution of the institution of war"There is ample historical evidence, for example, of the ways in which measures supposed to increase military security--development of armaments, strengthening of border posts, and so on--can undermine trust between states, and actually make conflict more, not less, likely, as well as the tendency for low-level military conflicts to escalate. The unilateral adoption of a pacifist stance by one nation removes these potential provocations for invasion. We also have a good deal of evidence for the effectiveness of non-military resistance to armed invasion. That evidence itself must have some deterrent force for those who contemplate military occupation of a state that has institutionalized pacifist resistance. In the light of these considerations, it is at least doubtful that we can always be sure that military means are clearly more effective than pacifist ones"Even when they are not actually involved in a war, the financial costs of supporting military institutions are enormous. Once these institutions actually engage in war, death and suffering occur, often on a vast scale. Undoubtedly, this is the greatest harm associated with the present system. But there are others. War frequently leads to destruction of economic resources and important cultural artifacts, as well as wide-spread pollution. Those who participate in war are often psychologically disturbed for the rest of their lives. This is bad for them, but also for those close to them and indeed for their society as a whole. " Contention Five: Millions of innocents are jeopardized in preemptive wars. Prof. R. M. Scholtt agrues that "(5) In the Vienam War, there were an estimated 1.1 million Vietcong guerillas and North Vietnamese soldiers who died, and an estimated 2 million civilian deaths in the north and south between 1954 and 1975. (6) In the recent war in Iraq, unnamed U. S. military officials have said that between 10,000 and 15,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed, and the estimates of civilians killed by military intervention range between 21,705 and 24,628. (7) These examples indicate that civilian casualties in military conflict are almost as high as combatant casualties, and often are significantly higher. " Contention Six: Preventative wars increase terrorism. According to Prof. Dan Reiter, "A final concern about the costs of preventive actions is their potential to stimulate the very thing they were designed to prevent"terrorism. Preventive wars might increase terrorism in four ways: first, the substantial use of force may increase global anti-Americanism, which in turn may increase the motivation of some individuals to join terrorist groups". Second, the deployment of U. S. troops abroad may create targets of opportunity for terrorists. The militaries of democracies are tempting targets for terrorists, because democracies are perceived to be highly sensitive to casualties. One study found that most of the 188 instances of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2001 were launched against targets associated with democratic nations, particularly their militaries, in attempts to eject what were perceived as armies of occupation". Third, if preventive attacks open the door to insurgency wars, thus providing ready targets for terrorist reprisals, then the preventive attacks in effect generate training opportunities for terrorist organizations"Fourth, even if a military operation does culminate in regime change, the target state may be gripped by chaos and disorder, making it possible for terrorists and rogue elements to seize materials useful for producing NBC weapons. " A list of my sources can be found under comments. I may offer additional arguments to bolster my link to utilitarianism in my next speech, but as the rules state, I shall refrain from new points and new evidence/sources in the final round. Thus, I urge a Con ballot, and await Pro's replies.