Debate on preemptive strikes

In military terms, a preemptive strike is a defensive attack by one country against an enemy country. Preemptive strikes are designed to limit the damage or upset the schedule of an imminent attack, and are considered to be acts of national self-defense.

Preemptive strikes are given some legal protection by international law and the United Nations charter. However, clear-cut evidence justifying the use of a preemptive strike is seldom provided by the aggressor country.

Preemptive strikes are not the same as a preventive war, which is a violation of international law. Preventive war does not begin with an imminent threat, but rather a threat that will arise in the unspecified future. The aggressor nation is attempting to secure its advantage and eliminate these future threats.

In the twentieth century, many wars were fought with each side claiming the right to a preemptive strike. While some of these attacks have been deemed justified, the overwhelming majority have not, and have instead been prosecuted as immoral acts of preventive wars. After World War II, German and Japanese military officials were hanged as war criminals for engaging in, among many crimes, preventive war.

Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks against the US and the formulation of the Bush doctrine, the United States has attempted to equate preemptive strikes with preventive war. This attempt has been met with great controversy, both at home and abroad. International law and the United Nations remain divided over the legitimacy of American efforts to redefine these accepted legal definitions in an attempt to legitimize its actions.

Understanding the Discussion

Bush Doctrine: A new foreign policy implemented by US President George W. Bush in 2002. It stipulates that the United States government has the right to use force to protect its national security against any perceived foreign threat. This right affords the US the legitimate authority to preemptively attack any immediate or long-term threats.

Casus Belli: A Latin term used in international law to refer to the justification for war. It is usually translated as "case of war."

Neoconservative: A term used to describe a political movement in the US that supports, among other things, a strong military and an aggressive projection of American power throughout the world. Many members of and advisors to the administration of former President George W. Bush are characterized as neoconservatives.

Unilateral: A term used to refer to actions performed or opinions held by only one group.

United Nations: An international organization founded in 1945 to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security and economic development. It currently includes 192 countries.

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): A weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of human beings. This label is usually applied to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

History

According to military theorists, preemptive strikes are essential to warfare. When an enemy is poised to attack, a well-timed preemptive strike can not only disrupt the enemy offensive, but also give the attacker a strategic advantage. Numerous examples throughout history prove the effectiveness of preemptive strikes.

However, during the twentieth century, the rise of international law led to increasing challenges against preemptive strikes. This recognition of international law placed a negative status on the aggressor nation, identifying the concept of preemptive strikes as a reprehensible act outside the international community of nations. Two prominent preemptive strikes, the 1939 Nazi invasion of Poland and the 1941 Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor, were later judged to be instances of unprovoked preventive war, and the officials in charge of these operations were hanged by international courts following World War II.

The United Nations, established in 1945, clearly delineated acceptable cases of casus belli for the international community, stating that war is permissible solely as a defensive action by one nation against the aggression of an enemy nation. Preemptive strikes could only be undertaken with the approval of the United Nations or, in an extreme case, as a last resort in an instance of national self-defense.

During the Cold War, preemptive strikes were carried out around the world. The 1962 naval blockade against Cuba by the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis is often cited as an example of a peaceful preemptive strike that averted a future war. In 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies massed near the Israeli border, initiating the Six-Day War. Fourteen years later, the Israeli Air Force bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. However, while each of these preemptive strikes was allowed by the United Nations, they were each protested and disputed at the time.

Following the September 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States, President George W. Bush declared that the US was engaged in a global "war on terror." Unlike previous wars, terrorism represented a new threat never before faced in standard warfare. Since terrorists are not members of a nation-state that could be invaded, new rules of warfare had to be implemented to face the threat.

Of primary concern for President Bush was the possibility that other nations would covertly assist terrorists in launching attacks, especially attacks using WMDs, against the United States. Any nation assisting or harboring terrorists, Bush declared, would be considered a co-conspirator and attacked as a threat against the United States.

Iraq was an immediate target; evidence collected after the 1991 Persian Gulf War suggested that Saddam Hussein was seeking to create a nuclear weapon. While United Nations inspectors declared the Iraqi weapons program dismantled, unconfirmed intelligence reports suggested that the program continued in secret. Given Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran during its war in the 1980s, and against its own Kurdish population, the Bush Administration expressed the belief that Saddam Hussein's government had the capacity to provide WMDs. Other reports, also unconfirmed, suggested that Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. The combination of the potential WMD (combined with a historical willingness to use the weapons), and the possible association with a known threat such as al Qaeda, provided the first case for the Bush Doctrine to be utilized.

Citing the Bush doctrine, the American government began planning an invasion of Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein. When critics pointed out that such an invasion would constitute a preventive war, American officials argued that because a nuclear-armed Iraq would pose an immediate threat, the invasion met the definition of a preemptive strike.

Preemptive Strikes Today

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, American inspectors in Iraq failed to uncover any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, intelligence analysis revealed that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. By international legal standards, both revelations invalidated the claim of an imminent threat. These revelations have led to worldwide criticism and condemnation of the US invasion of Iraq, and severely undermined the moral justification behind the preemptive strike.

More recently, events in Iran and North Korea have led to a renewed debate over preemptive strikes. In violation of United Nations and other international treaties, both countries have launched nuclear weapons programs. To prevent these countries from gaining nuclear weapons and posing a threat to the international community, policymakers have begun discussion and planning for preemptive strikes against laboratories and nuclear facilities in both countries.

The underlying problem with preemptive strikes is the difficulty of defining circumstances in which such actions are legal under international law. Any attack by a sovereign nation against another, whether preemptive or not, is an act of war. Thus, in the aftermath, both nations will attempt to accuse the other nation as the aggressor during the build-up to war. The significance of this debate is the legitimacy of the action in the eyes of the international community and its law. Any nation wishing to exercise any type of moral leadership of this international community certainly must have concern about how its actions are viewed. If it is to exercise the preemptive option, it must provide a strong case of justification.

Defenders of the Bush doctrine point out that a preemptive strike is a necessary part of the "war on terror," and that the United States faces so many threats that it cannot afford to wait to be attacked. Instead, it must identify potential threats and neutralize them before they become actual threats. Since it is an accepted fact of international law that nations have a right to self-defense, supporters argue that the United States is only practicing a robust and aggressive form of self-defense. Citing this right, the United States will take any action it deems necessary, even unilateral engagements to prevent American citizens from harm.

Critics counter that the Bush Doctrine intentionally confuses preemptive strikes with preventive war. Under this doctrine, the United States can declare any nation a threat to American security and attack them as aggressors, with little concern or oversight from the international community. Despite the American government's claim that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to international security, doubts have surfaced about the US invasion. Questions of selective intelligence gathering by the US government and the subsequent post-invasion investigation have proved that this was not the case. This post-invasion revelation was a serious blow to the Bush administration and the leadership of the US, and international support for preemptive strikes has declined significantly.

After US President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, the Pentagon undertook a full review of the Bush preemptive strike doctrine. Nonetheless, members of the Obama administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have not fully ruled out the idea of a preemptive strike by US forces as a way to deal with the situation in Iran and North Korea.

These essays and any opinions, information or representations contained therein are the creation of the particular author and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EBSCO Publishing.

Bibliography

Books

Buckley, Mary, ed. The Bush Doctrine and the War on Terror: Global Reactions, Global Consequences . London: Routledge Publishing, 2006.

Chatterjee, Deen K. The Ethics of Preventive War. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013. Print.

Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance. New York: Henry Holt and Co, 2004.

Dolan, Christopher. In War We Trust: The Bush Doctrine and the Pursuit of Just War. London: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.

Glad, Betty, ed. Striking First: The Preventative War Doctrine and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.

Gordon, Michael. Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. New York: Pantheon, 2006.

Woodward, Bob. Plan of Attack. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004.

Periodicals Byers, Michael. "Preemptive Self-defense: Hegemony, Equality and Strategies of Legal Change." Journal of Political Philosophy 11.2 (June 2003): 171-190. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9708253&site=ehost-live.

Clark Arend, Anthony. "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force." Washington Quarterly 26.2 (Spring2003 2003): 89-103. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9275687&site=ehost-live.

de Goede, Marieke, Stephanie Simon, and Marijn Hoijtink. “Performing Preemption.” Security Dialogue 45.5 (2014): 411–22. Print.

Foer, Franklin. "Identity Crisis (cover story)." New Republic 231.4 (20 Dec. 2004): 22. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=15340245&site=pov-live.

Losurdo, Domenico. "Preemptive War, Americanism, and Anti-Americanism." Metaphilosophy 35.3 (Apr. 2004): 365-385. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12725195&site=ehost-live.

Mazarr, Michael J. "Strike Out." New Republic 233.3 (15 Aug. 2005): 15. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pwh&AN=17869025&site=pov-live.

Moriarty, Tom. "Entering the Valley of Uncertainty." World Affairs 167.2 (Fall 2004): 71-77. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. 23 June 2009 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=14175591&site=ehost-live.

Ørebech, Peter. “UN Charter Article 51 and the Right to ‘Anticipatory Self-Defense’: Validity of the US Preventive War Doctrine against Al Qaeda.” Middle East Critique 23.1 (2014): 53–72. Print.

Zakaria, Fareed. "Another War In The Middle East?." Time 179.11 (2012): 16. Academic Search Complete. Web. 8 Jan. 2013. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=73052270&site=ehost-live.