Bush administration's national security strategy of the United States stated that United States is willing to use force preemptively against enemies to prevent their using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or its allies. New deadly challenges have emerged from rogue states and terrorists since 9/11. Will we be able to prevent such attacks again? By examining Bush's national security strategy, after the possible outcomes of disadvantages and advantages, as far as I am concerned, advantages are better off than disadvantages. I believe we live in a dangerous world that rogue states and terrorists can threat our life and freedom; this is a good policy which will help the United States and its allies to have a legal means and a better international cooperation to prevent rogue states and terrorists by using force preemptively against enemies.
Bush's national security strategy has some disadvantages. First of all, anti-American feeling in Middle East has a long history; the one of most important issue was that Arab states blame the United States for Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.
Bush's national security strategy of using force preemptively to against enemies may be viewed by Arab states and citizens as an excuse for invasion, which leads to a further Anti-America feeling. Since Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are qualified as rogue states and states that support terrorism. For instance, The Bush administration itself has made the case for military action based on Baghdad's defiance of numerous UN Security Council resolutions. The Untied States use the force to invade Iraq by accusing that Iraq had bio-chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction, but it turned out to be nothing was found in Iraq. This invasion was viewed by many Arab states as US hegemonies.
Secondly, if the United States is willing to use force,