Frank Rich, a wonderful columnist for
The New York Times, had an interesting piece yesterday (July 16, 2006) entitled "From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You 'Axis of Evil'." (Subscription required.) In it he discusses Bush's "doctrine of preemptive war." I saw this and, once again, hit the roof. If you're careful when you read, you'll notice this error frequently. Everyone refers to the "doctrine of preemption" but it's really a "doctrine of prevention." If there's anything to prevent.
First for some definitions. My
Webster's New World Dictionary is very old, to be sure. In fact, the copyright is 1970. But I don't imagine definitions have changed significantly. It defines "preemption" as: "action taken to check other action beforehand." This implies that the action being checked is imminent. Under "prevent" it says: "implies a stopping or keeping from happening, as by some prior action or by interposing an obstacle or impediment." So, let's look at these definitions as they pertain to war.
A preemptive war may be justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger. In the case of our war on Iraq, however, the administration wanted to neutralize, or prevent, a potential future threat. If the criteria for a preventive war are that a country be dictatorial or despotic and have weapons of mass destruction then we should be invading Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, China, and maybe even Russia, just to name a few. And I won't even delve into how credible the threat of an attack by Saddam Hussein was. There was just a possibility that, at some time in the indeterminate future, he might have the weaponry to conduct some attacks or give to others to conduct attacks. This, then, was a preventive attack, not preemptive.
I'm no expert in International Law, and won't even attempt to sort through those issues. However, the Center for Defense Information says:
While aggression is traditionally considered unlawful, and self-defense lawful, more problematic is the question of whether a first-strike could ever be considered a defensive act rather than an act of aggression. The right of anticipatory self-defense assumes that an aggressor is poised to strike, and that one acts defensively in anticipation of the attack rather than waiting for the attack to occur. Traditionally, it was deemed theoretically possible that even a first-strike could be deemed defensive in nature, and lawful, if it was to forestall an attack that was imminent.
So, when you're reading articles or listening to speakers who talk about "preemptive" action, ask yourself, "Is this preemption or prevention." Trust me, it'll make a big difference.