THEATRE OF WAR ACTIVITY 1

Read Bruce Thornton’s “Why Should We Study War?”, then answer one of the following sets of questions:
1. Define the following two terms: “preventive war” and “preemptive war.” Use historical case studies to explain the differences between the two.

2. Thornton’s “Why Should We Study War?” draws on the lessons of the past to argue that preemptive war is a “necessity.” On what historical lesson does he draw? How can we be sure he was
drawing on the right lesson of the past? Are there any historical instances in which a preemptive war failed miserably? Might such a historical instance be used to argue precisely the opposite,
i.e., that preemptive war is a mistake?
3. Compare Thornton’s insistence on the “necessity” of preemptive war to Ernest May and Richard Neustadt’s insistence (in Thinking in Time, p. xv) that “caution is a virtue.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THEATRE OF WAR ACTIVITY 1

(Author’s name)

(Institutional Affiliation)

Thornton draws his support of preemptive war from Hitler’s 1936 choice to remilitarize Rhineland against the Versailles treaty terms (Wandycz, 2014). Hitler succeeded in his mission because the French did not resist. Later on, Hitler joined forces with Czechoslovakia after France and England abandoned the country. The alliance provided Hitler with the arms and support he needed to attack Poland. Thornton was drawing on the right lesson because France and England would have prevented Hitler’s attacks had they chosen preemptive war on Germany (Thornton, 2013). Hitler clearly stated that he would have retreated in the case of Rhineland if he faced opposition. However, France decided to steer clear thus Germany’s success.

The two countries would have also prevented the attack on Poland since they were aware of Hitler’s plans. France and England decided to support Poland when it was too late. Hitler already had the upper hand with superior arms and a willing army. Preemptive war is, therefore, a necessity, especially when fighting against a tyrant or terrorist. However, despite its benefits, there are times when preemptive war fails and bears extreme fatalities. A good example is President’s Bush attack on Iraq (Gompert, Binnendijk, & Lin, 2014). Bush suspected that Saddam owned weapons that would lead to mass destruction when used. The suspicions were, however, wrong. The war waged by Bush on Iraq resulted in consequences that America still suffers to-date.

In conclusion, preemptive war is a necessity despite the failure of some of these wars. Caution is preferable to regret. Therefore, countries should prepare for, and go to war if they have justifiable reasons to do so.

References

Gompert, D., Binnendijk, H., & Lin, B. (2014). THE IRAQ WAR: BUSH’S BIGGEST BLUNDER. Newsweek.

Thornton, B. (2013). Why Should We Study War?. Hoover Institution. Retrieved 27 January 2017, from http://www.hoover.org/research/why-should-we-study-war

Wandycz, P. (2014). The Twilight of French Eastern Alliances, 1926-1936 (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.