The Department of Defense has officially adopted the doctrine of preemptive strike in its "National Military Strategy" and "National Defense Strategy". These are reports that are part of a comprehensive review of military strategy conducted every 4 years. See this story in the L.A. Times.

I can't help feeling outraged and misrepresented. But there are some hard questions involved. What if the intelligence services do pick up a real and impending threat? At what point does it become okay to neutralize the threat? Do we wait until the threat is in the process of being carried out before we act?

While it is apparently not the DoD's job to consider, I think what is missing from the discussion is a real assessment of the root causes of the threats. I don't buy the administration's line that the "terrorists" want to destroy democracy and freedom. That is a simplistic, hand-wave of an answer. We should consider the ways in which we touch their lives. We should consider the ways in which we have been a threat to them. We should engage these human beings in dialog. And that's not to say we have to concede to their every demand or even that we call it a "negotiation". But we should at least be curious to know what the issue is. Hearing their concerns, and understanding the effects of our "interests" and culture on the world can lead to more enlightened policy.