Current talk of an Iraqi regime change seems to indicate that the threat of weapons of mass destruction is a justification for deposing Saddam Hussein. Such intervention, no matter the results of the inspection, seems to thrust the lone superpower into a position of “global policeman.”

President Bush announced Friday a major departure from more than 50 years of foreign policy, leaving behind the Cold War strategies of containment, deterrence and d‚tente. “Pre-emption” is the new strategy, indicating a greater U.S. willingness to act aggressively to head off a rival. Rather than depending upon the mutual assurance that the another superpower could strike back, thus keeping aggression on both sides in check, the pre-emption strategy would call for more flexible, precise responses to perceived threats, before they harm U.S. national interests.

Such a new strategy may create a dangerous precedent, both for the United States and the world. First, if our foreign policy goal is to enact regime change in those places ruled by despots, the road after Saddam will be long. We will not tolerate undemocratic governments with weapons of mass destruction, and a regime change in Iraq only signifies the beginning if we pursue the pre-emption policy and decide to clean house .

If we follow the pre-emption policy, we will also then be fixing our crosshairs on Pervez Musharraf, the leader of Pakistan by virtue of coup and self-proclamation. He has nuclear weapons as well. What about Fidel Castro? He certainly does not have the mandate of the people and he’s already proven his threat to the United States in the past.

Beyond the immense cost to the American military vis- -vis the America taxpayer, the new policy of preemption begs a larger question. Will another power also assume the same moral authority to act pre-emptively? What if a pre-emptive strike by China, for example, is not in the United States national interests? How shall we keep a monopoly on pre-emption, assuring that those states who are not with us do not also follow the precedent we have set?

In game theory, parties engaged in repeated play tend to mimic the behavior of their opponents. As a result of our new pre-emption policy, will our opponents mimic U.S. actions? Such a possibility and its high costs may very well outweigh the immediate payoff of removing Saddam.

Editorial Board: Cavan Reagan, Erin Randolph, Rachel Faber Machacha, Charlie Weaver, Zach Calef, Ayrel Clark.