Comparing Containment VS. Preemption

The two foreign policies of Containment and Preemption are very different from each other, meaning there is not really a middle ground where the two can be similar. The Doctrine of Containment is focused upon the idea of “containing” an area or in the case of foreign policy, another country. The Doctrine of Containment was based upon the idea in which war would not be fought with the communist Soviet Union, and instead, the idea to cut off communism and the Soviet Union to their preexisting boundaries was established.
The Doctrine of Containment was also utilized within Iraq when the U.S. warned Saddam to put an end to the corrupt ways in which he was ruling or else we would invade. Not invade in terms of staring a war, but invade in terms in “containing” the area and making sure things would not continue the way in which they were at the time. Containment is a policy in which war is not taken as an action in order to stop another country in their actions, but rather a tactic in which is used to keep a certain area controlled and to cut off the power sources of the enemy.
The foreign policy of Preemption can be described and viewed as the complete opposite of Containment. The Doctrine of Preemption was the theory in which a country will be invaded before they have the chance to attack the invading country. A pre-emptive attack is a military tactic designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of an anticipated attack from an enemy.
It was within the Bush Doctrine, and under the United States that the Doctrine of Preemption was used in a war.
In comparing and contrasting the foreign policies of Containment and Preemption, it is evident that Containment was used in cases of containing, for example: communism in a communist- based country. Preemption was used with the idea being- attack before being attacked. In examining the two different policies, I think it is valid to say that the U.S. foreign policy can in fact be a combination of both Containment and Preemption.
I think the U.S. policy should be a combination of both Containment and Preemption because it is evident that, we as the United Sates have already used both of them in dealing with two different situations and two different countries. The U.S first used the Doctrine of Containment when dealing with the issue of communism within the Soviet Union. Then the U.S. used the Doctrine of Containment when dealing with Saddam in Iraq and their issue of communism.
The area in which the U.S. first used the Doctrine of Preemption was when the U.S. first came to the assumption that Iraq was creating and holding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The United States’ conclusion in that Iraq did in fact have WMD’s gave the impression that the weapons could be used for an attack on the U.S. With this information, the U.S. invaded and attacked Iraq before having the chance to be attacked by them first.
If the U.S. has a foreign policy made up of both Containment and Preemption it will be a strong policy and show the strength of our country. A foreign policy made up of both Containment and Preemption would show our country’s strength because we have already used both of these doctrines within previous wars and in already using them, we show that we know how to effectively use them.
If the United States’ foreign policy was strictly made up of Containment then there would be room for complaints from the U.S. citizens saying that there is no reason for troops to be in another country if they are strictly containing the area; this argument has in fact already happened. If the United States’ foreign policy was strictly made up of Preemption then there would be complaints that nothing has happened to our country, why invade if nothing has happened? This argument has also occurred. The fact is that if the U.S. foreign policy was made up of both the Doctrines of Containment and Preemption there would be no room for complaints, for the U.S. could choose whatever doctrine they saw fit to handle the situation of opposing countries.