"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," a thirty-five-page statement signed by President George W. Bush on September 17, 2002, is a thought-provoking document. Its nine major sections depict the world as seen by the nation’s current administration and how it intends to relate to other states.

This statement’s justification of preemptive military strikes against those who are preparing to harm the United States is perhaps its most controversial feature. "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community," declares President Bush, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country."

President Bush argues that this is not a novel doctrine but a new application of several established principles that is required by changing circumstances. One of these principles is that each state has a right to defend itself and to protect its citizens. Another is that such a nation need not wait until it has been attacked to do so. A third is that the possibility of justifying a preemptive military strike increases with the imminence and magnitude of a likely attack.

The validity of such principles has long been recognized, President Bush contends. Because technology and military tactics have changed, as evidenced especially by the events of September 11, 2001, he also holds that it is no longer always necessary for a nation to delay its preemptive strikes until there are obvious signs that it is about to suffer great harm.

President Bush also states that this policy "will be based upon a distinctively American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests." This transcends the debate between those who say that the foreign policies of the United States should be moral and those who claim that they should be prudential by simultaneously affirming both assertions.

Although some in both schools of thought may reject President Bush’s approach as an unfortunate refusal to choose between competing frames of reference, this is not my worry. I think it is a good idea to distinguish between a nation’s values and its interests and to keep both in mind when crafting its foreign policies. I also think that in many cases we can detect what some call a "happy convergence" between the two, especially when nations with civilized values consider their long-term interests. I fear that President’s Bush’s September 17 statement assumes too easily that this is always the case, however. The differences between a nation’s values and its interests sometimes may be greater than he apparently thinks, particularly in the short run.

At the very least, if President Bush’s doctrine of the legitimacy of preemptive military strikes is warranted for the United States, it should be so for all other nations as well. Although they may not have understood the whole of the moral life, Immanuel Kant and others were right when they argued that sheer logic requires us to treat equal parties equally. This is why we should put into practice only those guidelines that we could make universal laws without logical self-contradiction. Unless there is an ethically relevant difference between them, what’s right for the goose, is right for the gander!

President’s Bush’s statement doesn’t deny this point but neither does it affirm it. It states that the United States has a right to make preemptive military strikes but it does not declare that other contemporary nations do so as well. I think the document would have been more persuasive if it had stipulated that the United States demands for itself what it also claims for all other nations, no more and no less. Leaving this important matter unspecified may leave the unfortunate impression that the United States intends to live by one set of rules while imposing a different one upon other nations.

I also think that there is some tension between the different things the statement does say about this issue. On the one hand, it frequently declares that "the great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom," or words to that effect. On the other, at one point it also states that "our forces will be strong enough to dissuade political adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

To my way of thinking, the first statement makes more sense than the second. If it is morally acceptable for the United States to possess the military power it does, why should it be ethically unacceptable for other nations to do so, too? That this would be contrary to the nation’s interests is clear; that it would contradict its values is less so. Again, what’s right for the goose is right for the gander!

Some claim that there are no important differences between values and interests because both are equally subjective. This is a tricky issue. As we often use these terms, it is true that interests are subjective. It would be odd to say that something is of interest to someone if he or she has no regard for it; however, it is possible for individuals and groups to have interests in things that objectively are not good ("of value") for them or not to have interests in things that objectively are. This reduces without wholly eliminating the subjectivity values. If one grants a subjective interest in living rather than dying, some things are objectively better for us than others. For humans with a subjective preference for life, water is a better beverage ("of greater objective value") than gasoline, even if some prefer petroleum’s taste.

Much will be gained if thoughtful people around the world, Christian and non-Christian alike, acquire this document from the Internet at www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf and discuss it. The stakes are getting higher each and every day!

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE