After the events of 11 September 2001, the Bush administration was right to focus its energy on a nexus of new threats to US security: the combination of rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It was right, too, in its insistence that the US retain the right to use force preemptively against these threats, even without the sanction of the international community. But the Bush administration's elevation of preemption from option to doctrine is a misguided and even dangerous response to these threats. It is not enough to deploy power to end rogue regimes; the US must show staying power and engage the help of others to secure the peace. America must engage the new threats to its security sooner and more broadly, using hard and soft power to shape the environment in which it acts. This longer, broader view is the difference between a doctrine of preemption and a strategy of comprehensive engagement.
展开▼
