Preemption

Use of force by one state against another to prevent a potential attack or counter a perceived threat. The accepted norms of international relations give states the right to defend themselves when attacked. However, a state that faces an imminent threat to its security is not required to wait for an aggressor to strike before taking action. Preemption thus becomes an extension of the right of self-defense, but only if unprovoked aggression is imminent.

Arguably, Israel's strike against the Egyptian air force that began the 1967 Six-Day War was justifiably preemptive. Israel had reason to fear that the Egyptians were planning to attack, making its strike a necessary act of self-defense. The Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, however, is not considered preemptive, because the reactor was under construction and did not present an immediate threat.

Preemption has developed into a foreign policy under U.S. president George W. Bush. He first alluded to preemptive action in an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 1, 2002. In that address, Bush asserted that the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment were outdated and ineffective in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He stated, “If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” Bush described an altered international sphere where threats had to be eliminated before given a chance to effectively form and threaten nonaggressors.

The 2003 National Security Strategy of the United States stated, “We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.” The document outlined a preemptive strategy to combat weapons of mass destruction, a threat the president argued must be defended against before it is unleashed. In the report, the president asserted that the United States would act preemptively if it deemed a perceived threat to be imminent.

The Bush administration applied this doctrine of preemption to Iraq in its argument for deposing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The administration alleged that Saddam had amassed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that he was developing a nuclear weapons program. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case for disarming Saddam Hussein [Page 591]before the UN Security Council in February of 2003. Powell maintained that Saddam's past history of aggression indicated that the Iraqi leader was willing to use WMD to achieve his goals. The secretary of state characterized Iraq as an immediate threat to its neighbors and to the United States.

The announced policy of preemption was widely criticized, both in the United States and abroad. Many Americans were uncomfortable with the idea of the United States starting a war before it was attacked. The notion seemed at odds with the country's principle of mutual respect for the sovereignty of nations. To many Americans, the idea of preemption was disturbingly reminiscent of the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into World War II. That event became a metaphor for treachery for many Americans, who were concerned that the United States was now adopting something disturbingly similar as national policy. Some critics have also voiced the fear that the administration's aggressive policies may result in increased terrorist attacks against Americans.

...