Meaningless words: "containment" & "imminence"

No: Not meaningless words. If imminence is not a criteria for gauging the seriousness of a threat, then the World's only super power is morally justified in a preemtpive strike against whomever its political leaders deem to be a threat, whenever they want.

While this may be a comforting world for frightened Americans, I would argue that's it's a scary for any one else--and in the long run self-defeating for American interests, too.

You may not like the consequences of the fact that containment and imminence are essentially irrelevant concepts but that does nothing to change the fact itself. Instead of denying reality, it would be better to propose alternative criteria for when the US does and does not have the right to intervene. And I would say that it is probably not a sound basis for American policy to limit our actions by how "scary" they may or may not be to non-Americans. The Bush Administration has put a lot of thought into this: http://www.r21online.com/archives/000248.html.

Your basically suggesting that unless the US can proove the imminence of a threat then it is not justified in taking any action. Since this is un-proovable in today's environment you are essentially saying it is never justified. It would have been unjustified to go after Osama Bin Laden on 9/10/01.

You may not like the fact that the Cold War world of conatinment and imminence has passed us--heck I don't like that fact eaither--but deal with it. Come up with other criteria for when US action is justified--but doing nothing ever is not an option.

The Bush administration and its natural allies like Chris Alden propose that containment has failed: They therefore argue that imminence is no longer a useful criteria to judge threats to national security.

They deduce that containment has failed by noting that no one thought that the attacks of 9.11.2001 were imminent, and that containment could hardly have deterred Usama bin Laden.

But has containment in fact failed? I am not sure that this is so very clear. No one has ever seriously contended that deterrence would ever contain non-national terrorists like Al Qaeda, or the failed states of the PLO, or the Lebanon.

But containment, and international diplomacy, and the threat of internatioanlly sanctioned force has effectively contained the sovereign states of Saddam Hussein, Kim Il Jung, and other unlikable countries in the post cold war era.

This is serious stuff. It needs to be seriously considered. By introducing preemption as a justified tool of international relations, the Bush Amdinistration threatens to radically destablize an already dangerous world. Consider the implications if China decides, in all probable sincerity, that Taiwan constitutes an threat, regardless of any imminence, and launches a preemptive strike.

But in the absence of an imminent threat, the Bushies' argument that our preemptive strikes are justifiable derives from their odd sense of entitlement, and messianic mission, so repugnant to the rest of the world. Our might is right, because we are free and good, and would never embark on war as an imperial adventure--but only to spread our values of democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.

The rest of the world is more skeptical of the purity of our intentions, and of our historical ompetence as power. The history of governments is one of the abuse of power, and the history of America specifically is rife embarrassments like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Honduras, Chile, and Nicauraga. We are being asked to trust the Government's intelligence and foresight--and that is something that Republicans only do when they are themselves in power.