Preemptive War Doctrine

Policy that proposes waging war in an attempt to avoid an imminent attack or to gain a strategic advantage over an impending threat. The main aim of a preemptive attack is to gain the advantage of initiative by using military force before the opponent does. A typical example of a preemptive strike is an attack against enemy troops massed at a state's border ready to invade.

The Dictionary of Military Terms, the official dictionary of the U.S. Department of Defense, defines preemption as “an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.” It defines prevention in different terms. A preventive war is “initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.” This apparently was the logic that led to the war in Iraq in 2003.

There are several examples of preemptive attacks throughout the history of warfare. In 1587, English privateer Sir Francis Drake, under the order of Queen Elizabeth I, launched a preemptive attack to destroy the Spanish armada of King Philip II of Spain while it was still anchored in the Spanish port of Cádiz. Prussia's invasion of Saxony and Bohemia in 1756 as Austrian, Russian, and French troops were plotting to attack is also considered a preemptive strike. Preemption was also a strong motive behind the rush to war by Germany, Russia, and France at the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the Chinese intervention in Korea in 1951, and the Israeli strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan's forces that were gathering on Israel's borders in 1967.

Preemptive war is often confused with preventive war, and, in fact, a thin line divides the two. Academics define the difference between preemption and prevention solely in terms of time frame. Scholar Robert Jervis, for example, in the November/ December 2002 issue of Foreign Policy, defined preemption as “an attack against an adversary that is about to strike,” whereas preventive attack “is a move to prevent a threat from fully emerging.” Although preventive attack is generally considered to violate international law and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive war is usually thought to be more acceptable.

Specifically, a preemptive attack is believed to be justifiable if it meets the criteria that Secretary of State Daniel Webster spelled out in 1837. According to his strict conditions, a threat must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means or no moment of deliberation” for this type of attack to be permissible.

In contrast, the U.S. National Security Strategy document issued in September 2002 argued that the conditions that justify military preemption must be revised. According to this document, the old standard in international law that states can legally order preemptive [Page 593]strikes only when faced with an imminent threat is too restrictive. Instead, it argues that the anticipatory action is justified even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack, because the possibility of a terrorist attack with weapons of mass destruction makes the risk of waiting too high.

...