“After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. foreign and defense policy undertook a major shift under the administration of President Bush. The Bush administration created and executed a policy of preemptive military action against any threat deemed imminent to the security of the U.S. (Commonly referred to as the "Bush Doctrine") This policy was used as justification for invading Iraq in 2003, which was believed to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction and accused of harboring international terrorists. Discuss whether you believe the U.S. should follow such a foreign policy. What are the costs of preemptive military action? What are the costs associated with not preempting threats to U.S. national security? Do you believe such a policy makes the U.S. and its citizens more or less secure?”

There is arguably two ways one could approach this discussion. One way being from a political realist/power-politics perspective, and the other from a moralist idealist perspective; and while both can start in the same place; they end up in some very different conclusions. So for all intents and purposes I’m going to stay within a political realist perspective on this issue.
Since the Second World War, the U.S. has increasingly achieved a sort of empire and has in fact become the new Rome, as Chalmers Johnson would put it. Much like its predecessors in order to maintain the empire it needs to enact the security of its interests in it. In the U.S.’s case, instead of traditional colonies, it is some seven hundred and thirty-seven DOD acknowledged bases as of 2005, spread out strategically around the world in order to ensure that the status quo remains in favor of U.S. interests around the globe. As George F. Kennan, in the late 1940’s put it, our foreign policy is designed to protect our raw materials. In this case, Kennan was referring to Central and South America,