I have a problem with this concept of a pre-emptive strike against a country which you consider to be a threat to yourself. It sets a precedent, which seems to be being played out with the current “Turkish insurgence” into Northern Iraq. If the US can invade a country to remove a perceived threat, then the Turks, who have a big issue with the concept of a Kurdish state which they consider will add to their own terrorist problem, have every right to do the same. This is already happening two days after the precedent has been set and the US is unhappy. The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan didn’t end in all out war because neither wanted to be seen to cast the first stone. Now, it appears, they would be justified in invading and taking over their neighbour should they consider their security to be under threat.
Obviously the fact that the US is the sole superpower in the world affects this. There is a balance of power between India and Pakistan. But I remain worried about this precedent.