|
Trending Topics
|
The Alternative to Wars of Choice Is Wars with Our Backs Against the Wall
(Washington Times) Clifford D. May - America's military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran is being condemned as "a war of choice, not a war of necessity." I'm here to make the case for wars of choice. My argument is simple: Delaying wars does not ensure lasting peace. On the contrary, delaying wars has often led to wars more costly in blood and treasure. A war of choice is a conflict we decide to wage to achieve vital goals before our enemies push our backs up against the wall. If your enemy picks up a pistol, does that constitute an imminent threat? Or must you wait until you see his finger on the trigger - by which time it may too late for you to defend yourself? The 2002 U.S. National Security Strategy that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, explicitly endorsed preemptive action against gathering threats. CIA Director John Ratcliffe last week told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iran posed a "constant threat to the United States...and posed an immediate threat" before the war began. For decades, we have allowed the threat from the self-proclaimed jihadis in Tehran to metastasize. They've been building nuclear weapons facilities under mountains. They've been funding, arming, and instructing terrorist militias beyond their borders. They've plotted assassinations and kidnappings in America and Europe. They've been amassing thousands of drones and missiles. President John F. Kennedy observed: "There are risks and costs to action, but they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction." The writer is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.