Is Pre-Emptive War Wrong?

1. Is Pre-EmptiveWar Wrong? Is Pre-EmptiveWar Wrong? II II

2. Bush Administration Policy on Pre-Emptive War Central Features • The Bush Administration policy on pre-emptive war attempts for the first time to outline a reasonable doctrine on which the USA can justify engaging in acts of pre-emption. This, the Administration feels, is a necessary move given changes to both the technology and the aims of potential enemies of the Unites States.

3. Recall the Distinction Between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello Just war requires both: • Jus ad bellum (Justice in going to war); and • Jus in bello (Justice in waging war). There can be cases of jus ad bellum without jus in bello, and vice versa. • Entering a war justly, and waging it unjustly. • Entering a war unjustly, but waging it justly.

4. Rogue States The Bush policy defines Rogue States as those which: • brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; • display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; • are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; • sponsor terrorism around the globe; and • reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands. • Note: these are not necessary or sufficient conditions. These points are descriptive, not prescriptive.

5. The Cold War The Cold War was a period of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union, lasting roughly from the 1940s to the early 1990s. • The Cold War was marked by its lack of active conflict. • Instead, the conflict between the USA and USSR was consisted in mutual strategies of deterrence and the ongoing threat of mutual assured destruction. • However, the fall of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War coincided with the rise of new threats.

6. There is some evidence that this is not the case: the USSR rounded up families from suicide bombers, torturing and killing them, and this form of deterrence did seem to work. The Soviet Union vs. Rogue States USSR Rogue States & Terrorists • Rogue states not risk averse; unlikely to be deterred by threat of destruction of their wealth and people. • Terrorists not risk averse; deterrence won't work against them, since many of them seek martyrdom. • Risk averse; deterrence was effective defense against.

7. The Soviet Union vs. Rogue States USSR Rogue States & Terrorists • For rogue states, weapons of mass destruction are tools of intimidation and aggression; they are the best means of overcoming the USA’s superiority in conventional weapons. • Weapons of mass destruction considered last resort. What are some rogue states? • North Korea • Iraq (well, it was) • Iran (probably qualifies for at least a couple of the points) • Afghanistan (pre-9/11)

8. Aspects of the Doctrine “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.” • This alters the historical way in which “imminent threat” should be considered regarding rogue states and terrorists.

9. Aspects of the Doctrine “Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today’s threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries’ choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first.” • The USA can’t wait until anuclear missile has beenlaunched – there is too muchdestructive power. • The USA must attack beforethe fuse is lit. • The USA can’t deter anopponent like Kim Jong-il orOsama bin Laden.

10. Aspects of the Doctrine “The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.” • This is the first such statement by the US – as a policy. • Not waiting on the imminent threat of a massed army. • The USA reserves the right to attack even without imminent threat of attack (traditionally defined). • When is a “pre-emptive” attack too early to be morally justified? • Compare with standard cases of self-defense.

11. When is an Attack on the Enemy Justified? Traditional Ground Warfare Enemy armycrosses US border. No indications of enemy aggression. Enemy army moving towards US border. Enemy hasattacked. Enemy building size of armed forces. Enemy armyat US border. 21st Century Warfare Enemy launches NBC weapons. No indications of enemy aggression. Enemy weaponizes NBC. Enemy NBCshit USA. Enemy begins researching NBC. Enemy points NBC weapons at USA.

12. Aspects of the Doctrine “The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions.” • This seems to counter an argument that the USA should use military force against anyone who has a weapons-of-mass-destruction program. • This is an option, but will not be taken in every case. • The USA hasn’t attacked North Korea …

13. Aspects of the Doctrine • (… however, following the North Korea’s October 2006 detonation of a nuclear device, Bush stated that “transfer of nuclear weapons or material by North Korea to states or non-state entities would be considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable of the consequences of such action.”) President Bush's Statement on North Korea Nuclear Test http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061009.html

14. Aspects of the Doctrine “The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.” • We’re not going to attack without consideration of proportionality: recall the outline of jus in bello from last class. • We’re not going to attack without good reason: recall the “morally justifiable” conditions of jus ad bellum from last class: • Defense against aggression. • Correction of an injustice that has gone uncorrected by legitimate authority “in another place”. • Reestablishment of a social order which will distribute justice. • Undertaken with the intention of bringing about peace.

15. Max Boot: “The Bush Doctrine Lives” Boot’s Claims Regarding the Bush Doctrine: • Preemptive war is not new. • Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) • A naval blockade was ordered by Kennedy to forestall build-up of Soviet nuclear arms in Cuba. • Note: a naval blockade qualifies as an act of war. • The 1983 invasion of Granada on Reagan’s order. • Ordered in response to a Marxist/Leninist coup d’état of Granada, and subsequent build-up of military, so that Granada would not become a powerful Soviet satellite.

16. Boot’s Claims, continued... • The doctrine of preemption has had some positive effects. • “This helps explain Muammar Qaddafi's sudden willingness to give up his WMD arsenal, lest he too wind up in a spider hole trying to evade Delta Force. This may also explain the Iranian mullahs' willingness to accept greater international scrutiny of their nuclear program.” • Preemption does not necessarily involve large-scale military intervention such as what has taken place in Iraq. • Might involve pinpoint strikes. • Might involve sanctions or blockades.