Iraq Was Not A Preemptive War

Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

• Share
• Print View
• Comments

This week, Republican presidential candidate John McCain claimed that he would reserve the right to wage preemptive war, and with good reason. After all, preemptive war could one day be necessary, and every president should reserve the right to wage it.

The problem, however, is that neither John McCain, nor the media for that matter, seem to know what a preemptive war actually is. The Iraq War, for one, was not a preemptive war, but a preventive one. There is a big difference.

While a preemptive war is the act of striking an enemy on the brink of aggression, a preventive war is little more than unprovoked conflict, something that is both criminal under international law, and universally considered to be an immoral act. Preemptive war is about self-defense, while preventive war is the channeling of paranoia, or even worse, ulterior motives.

To better understand the differences, let's look at the textbook example of preemptive war in modern history. Prior to the Six Day War of 1967, Egypt and Syria had been mobilizing their troops for what appeared to spell an imminent attack on Israel. The rhetoric was tense, and the smell of blood was in the air. Having fought two previous wars of survival with its Arab neighbors, Israel decided that it could not wait to be attacked -- it struck first. Israel needed the strategic upper hand that comes with firing the first shots, and many will argue that it had no choice but to act.

A preventive war is something entirely different. Richard Betts of Columbia University's Institute of War and Peace Studies says that a preemptive war is akin to having two cowboys face each other at high noon. One will draw first, shooting in preemptive fashion. A preventive war, on the other hand, would amount to walking up to a cowboy in a saloon while he's playing cards, and shooting him point blank in the head.*

Preventive wars are nothing new. Rome waged its share of preventive conflicts against unruly barbarians. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor knowing (or thinking) that it was just a matter of time before it would have to fight America.

The goal of preventive war has always been to finish off a potential adversary who might or might not one day be powerful enough to pose a serious challenge. A country should consider carefully the kind of historical and ethical legacy it wants to establish, as well as the practical costs associated with acting simply on fears of what might occur one day in the distant future.

In his recent remarks, John McCain seemed to get his definition of preemptive war only half right, saying at a town-hall meeting in Connecticut that "[if] someone is about to launch a weapon that would devastate America, or have the capability to do so, obviously, you would have to act immediately in defense of this nation's national security interests." Someone about to launch a weapon that would devastate a country constitutes an imminent threat. Simply having the capability to do so? That brings us to the dangerous realm of preventive conflict.

The media, unfortunately, have failed to openly discuss the differences between a preemptive war and a preventive one. Like the term "weapons of mass destruction," which gets casually thrown without talk of the specific weapons systems in question, the term "preemptive war" has now taken a life of its own, inexplicably becoming synonymous with the Iraq conflict.

This, from Salon earlier this year: "McCain was among the most aggressive proponents of a preemptive strike against Saddam Hussein, cosponsoring the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq."

If we can actually tell the difference between a preemptive war and a preventive one, we might come to terms with the underlying question posed by this war, namely: What kind of threat constitutes an immediate one? Then, and only then, can we begin to grasp the enormity of the blunder we call the Iraq War.

* Engaging Iran, pp. 117-118

Comments

[RickO]

One of the ever-evolving reasons for pre-emptive war is that a country, like Iraq and more recently Iran had the desire to acquire WMD (in the emerging absence of any tangible evidence). Desire is a thought. This means that we've elevated thought crime to a capital offense. The old adage "don't even think about it" has taken on an ominously conesquential reality.

[ufo405ten]

protect your state) So by not considering the scope of preemptive war this paper fails to make a clear distintion between preemptive and preventive war. (Don"t get me wrong. I loved the gun example and that is correct) The Bush Doctrine is saying that with technology and terrorism there are constant imminent threats and bottom line you can"t argue against that. The problem is that most of the intelligence Bush was getting was either politicized or cherry picked. The problem is not the justification or the reasoning that Bush" uses or the theory..beacuse the theory is correct and doesn"t violate international law. What does violate international law is fabricating or emphasizing evidence that was incorrect for some other means. Maybe economic maybe personal. Now that is a preventive war¦and maybe even more egregious because it is trying to justify such action with false information.

[ufo405ten]

Although I think it is important that the public understand the difference between preemptive and preventive war, this article over simplifies the issue and leads a reader in the wrong direction. I do agree that the Iraq war is preventive but this article makes it sound like such conclusion can be drawn from the face of the Bush Doctrine or the War itself and it can not. It also makes it sound like the republicans are making the mistake unknowingly. (Because preventive war violates international law, THEY must call it preemptive war, in order to justify such action) As well as it doesn"t adequately define the preemptive war doctrine which comes from what I would say three main sources: the UN charter article 51(preemptive action also called anticipatory self defense which is justified under this law, preventive action is NOT as I said earlier), Carolina affair (adds imminent threat to definition of preemptive state action), and thousands of years of moral catholic tradition (never included imminent threat to state action only individuals. but do not get this confused with preventive war, the difference is necessary, preventive war is not necessary for the security of a state, although it maybe some believed harm in the future, preventive war is basically what was ok prior the 17th century also called res detat, as long as there was some reason that MIGHT

[KenArnold]

Nathan,
I've been enjoying your HuffPo blogs for a long time but hadn't until now put you together with our local Iran expert and general progressive activist. Bummer that the Obama campaign decided to scrub you, me and so many others from the potential national delegates list, especially after all the work you'd put into your effort to become a delegate, and all the work so many others put into the Obama campaign that the 'organization' may not have known of. I've certainly been trying to flip some of the Clinton super-delegates as well as influence the online masses on many sites (other than HuffPo which is mostly for BHO already). Anyhow, since we only get one male delegate from our CD I hadn't decided yet whether to you, me or someone else that has been working for the party and Obama longer.
Hope to see you Sunday for the 'show'. Curious to see who some of these accepted late additions are and how the turnout and voting goes.
Thanks for all the great writing here and on your other blogs and for your support of DFA, my campaign, etc.
Peace.
Ken

[Not Blind]

There was no immenent threat from Saddam Hussein, yet we heard a series of malicious lies, fabricated stories, evidence and skewed facts taken out of context from intelligence reports. It is an illegal and immoral war of aggression perpetrated by hubris, imperialism, greed and vindictiveness.
While McCain once served this country honorably, he's succumbed to either mental defect (stress-related emotional illness), age, forgetfulness and has become a zealot for carnage.
The propagandizing, helped by the corrupt corporate-owned media, convinced people that this war had purpose, and would be swift, efficient and secure us. The WMD's weren't there, nuclear capabilities never existed, we've been there over 5 years, and there's no end in sight. The war has been mis-managed by incompetent party loyalists, rather than military commanders and reconstruction experts, which has cost us dearly in lives and treasure. With our preoccupation in Iraq, Al-Qaeda, Bin-Laden have become stronger, recruit, refortify, rearm and are more powerful, posing a far graver threat to the US and western world than ever before.
Put semantics aside, and consider that McCain wants to prolong this nightmare, which should exclude him from consideration as a serious candidate amongst voters. This war has cost us credibility world-wide, drained our treasury, mortgaged us to foreign countries, numerous lives, and has no defined purpose, benchmarks for success, or any reason other than continue for the sake of being there.

[noam4prez]

Iraq is a profit-making war.

[JBS]

By your definition, Iraq is neither preemptive nor preventive war. Iraq was not building up to attack the US and was never a potential adversary who might one day be powerful enough to pose a serious challenge.

It was and remains an invasion solely for the purpose of imposing a grandiose "new American century" delusion creating a geo-political choke-point to give "US" oil companies a strangle-hold on Caspian Basin and west Asian oil and natural gas development. Not just taking Iraq's oil, but controlling ALL of the oil resources in the region.

Saddam Hussein didn't have to go because he was a dictator, he was the CIA's creation. The US put him in power in Iraq. He had no weapons of mass destruction; no chemical-biological weapons, and damn little conventional military power. After 10 years of sanctions, Hussein was a toothless tiger

Saddam Hussein's crime, the one thing he HAD to be killed for, and his government broken and thrown out of power, was this - he made a deal with French and Russian oil companies to come in and restore Iraq's oil production if the sanctions were ever lifted. And he proposed to accept payment for Iraqi oil in Euros, rather than US dollars.

[ManyColored]

I take issue with your definitions. Preemptive wars are almost always politically staged events to justify a government's immoral agenda. Iraq is a poster child for this. Aided and abetted by the Israeli Lobby (a hodgepodge of Right-wing Christians, neoconservatives, pro-Israel political action committees and support groups), as well as motivated by the envisioned economic and political gain and just plain delusion, the Bush Administration has irreversibly damaged this country. The American electorate seems unaware, in general, of the impact over generations this war will have on the United States. And while the electorate sleepwalks through life, the instigators, including John McCain, cochair of The Committee to Liberate Iraq (founded in 2002), will go to bed each night confident of their moral virtue and the justness of their cause. The citizens of Iraq will go to sleep each night wondering if they will be alive tomorrow. The much-strengthened militant Islamic movement will go to bed confident of their coming victory over the imperialist and infidel United States. Both political parties are complicit in this, and there is no good way out. Thanks, everyone, for your part in this.

[Snerdgronk]

Many: "I take issue with your definitions. Preemptive wars are almost always politically staged events to justify a government's immoral agenda. Iraq is a poster child for this."

SG: What in Nathan's definitions wouldn't allow for this.

And what in his definitions are you objecting to?

Snerd

[ManyColored]

The fact that he considers "preemptive wars" a viable option for a president. This implies directly that there is some moral validity to such an action; my view is that there is no moral justification for any preemptive war by the United States. We are much too strong for any organized country to dare such a move, at any rate. His definition, then, is out of line with my viewpoint, and I will ask you to think of one preemptive war, when the facts are out, that is morally justified.

[jhamm1]

Indeed, it's pretty obvious that the warhawks within the administration and McCain himself use "pre-emptive war" as a more inoccuous substitute for "unprovoked attack", for one can always bend the rules about subjective opinion to conclude that the degree to which one feels threatened is strictly in the mind of the beholder. Thus, perhaps even Mussolini could have sold off his incentives in 1935 as a form of "pre-emptive war" on account of fear that Ethiopia was on the brink of mounting an invasion of Italy.

[WorkingClass]

I prefer illegal and immoral but both leave room for argument. The best single qualifier is "unprovoked".

[mawrm]

Excellent Observation and I like your mention of the word "unprovoked". That's actually a very important item that is left out of the discussion. One could argue that the Six Day War was "provoked" by the amassing of Egyptian and Syrian forces - they presented a clear and immediate threat to Israel. On the other hand, how in any way was Iraq provoking the US, a nation over 7000 miles away? If anything we were provoking them daily with no-fly zones, warships in the Gulf, troops amassed in neighboring Kuwait and other irritants.

[sdrawkcab]

In matters of war, everybody should know, by now, to flip the Orwellian language:

Winning the peace = blowing up shit, without progress.
Pre-emptive war = prevent agression
Preventive war = illegal first strike

McCain, and Clinton for that matter, keep telling us that the reason for war is no longer the issue, but continually duck the question: why WAS this a just war? why IS this a just occupation?

We have an obligation to, at this point, clearly define our mission, objectives, and strategy in Iraq (e.g., are we NOW there to force Democracy upon them, or to prevent civil war, or to kill terrorist hatchlings?).

We owe that to our troops.

The war in Iraq was waged by minority-report, which told Bush that someday (psychics could not say when) top oil producing nations (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait) in this region, would obtain the means to prevent hostile action (see also WMDs, see also Mutually Assured Destruction), and this would, someday, threaten global supremacy.

Bush decided upon first strike (moral justification = procrastination).

The problem is, the minority report has not changed (irrational fear is never satisfied), and nobody can measure whether that day is hastened or delayed.

McCain and Clinton must clarify the justification for beginning the war, and the justification for occupation, and develop strategies which strictly conform to a just cause.

If they cannot provide justification (both now and originally) , voters have a DUTY to vote them out.

[Snerdgronk]

K Cab: "McCain and Clinton must clarify the justification for beginning the war, and the justification for occupation, and develop strategies which strictly conform to a just cause. If they cannot provide justification (both now and originally) , voters have a DUTY to vote them out."

SG: Your description of where we find ourselves now morally and the imperative to answer as a result of justifying the "W"a(R), is a nice counter to Clinton and Mc Same, who '(R)-goo', 'How we got here is just blame and can not help 'US' address the current problems.'

Snerd

[Mojane]

Yes, and there is also the Power of the Purse, which Congress has yet to exercise. Really, all they have to do is withhold any funding that isn't accounted for, itemized, beforehand. When I had to ask my parents for money for something, I had to have a pretty good reason for them handing it over. There has yet to be a full accounting, not even close really, for any of the almost 3 trillion that's already been dumped. What the hell.

Power of the Purse = You might get it if you can justify it. If not, to bad.

[Snerdgronk]

Mojane, if the (D)z did as you suggest and withheld specific unaccounted funding, would they have committed an 'preemptive attack' on the Bush administration or a 'preventive attack'?

Snerd

[jfor]

Bush had many choices he could have made regarding Saddam Hussein and Iraq after 9/11. Unfortunately for all of America this man who was educated at some of the finest institutions this country has to offer chose wrongly. He chose to go to war with Iraq, he chose to put our sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers in harms way for reasons that have not panned out time after time, he chose not to prepare for the aftermath of the initial conflict, he chose to use torture to justify his means, he chose to reduce enlistment standards to meet recruitment goals, he chose to borrow money for tax cuts. On and on decision after decision Bush has chosen wrongly.

Do not kid yourself the war in Iraq is all Dubya's, however just like always others have to pay for his laziness and incompetance in this case it is the future generations of American who will have to pay for the choices this man has made.

[mayrose]

I diasgree-it was a war of agression. Nothing more or less.

[outnow]

Neither the term "preventative war" nor "preemptive war" applies to the Iraqi conquest, although a distinction can and should probably be made between these two terms. Rather the Gulf War and the Iraq wars should be examined in terms of US strategy in a geopolitical sense. Going back to Kissinger's writings and Brzenzski's writings, there can be no doubt that controlling the oil resources of the Middle East have been central to the plans of the U.S geopolitically. Only be viewing the events historically and in the larger context does this emerge. Many people don't see the forest for the trees. The Grand Chess Board is larger than the Middle East. Once you have read the writings these two strategists, you will begin to understand the larger picture.

There were reasons that the U.S. conducted the Gulf War. Slant drilling from Kuwait was one. Lack of money after fighting with Iran for eight years was another. The Iraqi War had been planned by Bill Clinton's advisers. The "no-fly zones" and oil-for-food programs created embargoes that were killing Iraqi civilians. Approximately 500,000 children died under the sanctions. The U.S. interests were simple - it had nothing to do with any attacks planned against the U.S.

It is really no secret as to why the attacks occurred. Alan Greenspan admits it, for example. He thought that by this time everyone knew. He was wrong, I guess. Some people believe in Santa Claus, too, I suppose.

[outnow]

To prove my own point a quote from Henry Kissinger should illustrate.

"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls the money can control the world."

The reason we invaded Iraq has nothing, I repeat, nothing to do with defense of our country. The invasion and occupation have everything to do with oil and money. To believe otherwise is sheer folly and downright stupidity.

[Harinama]

Well, in classic neocon thinking, since oil is pretty much only traded in dollars in the major exchanges, and is in fact the only thing holding up the dollar presently, Iraq was all about the defense of our country and our economy. However, an economy built on militaristic control of the worlds resources is bound to fail, with the entire world(except our british overlords and Israel of course) hating our guts and making us pay.

oh, and we WILL PAY, you can bet on it. I just hope there's a country left to salvage.

[winoohno]

I think we're talking semantics here. You could have trouble finding the moment when a country is "on the brink" of war -- and therefore it might be problematic to discern whether it's pre-emptive or preventative.

In Political Science classes of my college years there was an Important Rule about Democracies: they don't attack each other. You could go through history and never find an example of a Democratic country invading another. That was why, or so I naively thought, promoting Democracy across the world was supposed to make the world safer.

Bush turned that theorem around with his unlawful invasion of Iraq. My problem is this: WE SHOULD NEVER GO TO WAR UNLESS THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMINENT THREAT TO THE USA. Period.

All this talk of pre-emptive this or preventative that -- it is just parsing language. There should be a significantly higher standard (than the rationale used by Bush) for sending our troops to combat. Bush will have the blood of thousands of people on his hands, and I hope he thinks about that the rest of his life.

[Durango]

"WE SHOULD NEVER GO TO WAR UNLESS THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL AND IMMINENT THREAT TO THE USA. Period."

And all alternatives to war have been explored.

As Ulysses.S. Grant, who knew a thing about war, once said: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not have been found to prevent the drawing of the sword."

[Harinama]

Well, Saddam Husseins outrageous idea of selling oil in ...euros...could be considered a threat. US dollars, which are continually printed like water, are held up in great concentrations by large foreign nations(ie. trillions..) so as to continue to buy as much oil as they need. Now, if oil was traded in say..euros, they'd have to dump all those trillions for euros...

just like diamonds, they only have value because 99% of them are kept off the market. Same with US dollars, if the market were flooded, a great portion of their value would diminish, and the oligarchic fortunes would vanish(but then they'd probably buy euros just before the crash, and allow us all to wallow in $30/gal of gas, $20 loaves of bread and gallons of milk.

Sound crazy? Hmm get an education on hyperinflation in other countries(ie. nigeria) and see just how real the possibility is.

[Snerdgronk]

wino: "I think we're talking semantics here."

SG: Well, I think we're actually 'talkin' "(R)hetoric" here. Before the invasion of Iraq, (R)hertoric was the tool which allowed the use of the gun.

We're also talkin' history and understanding when we're talkin' (R)hetoric - the ability to confuse 'thug at the door' with 'projected/manufactured thug who could, maybe, one day be at the door'. In fact John Bolten has '(R)-goo-ed' why we must actually think that way AND attack any country we fea(R). So Nathan's point is an 'educated' and valuable one.

Your idea that "W" turned 'Democracies don't attack Democracies' on its ear, might get a 'Chili' reception in some 'thinking' quarters of Central and South America. Moreover, it was the UN, comprised of many forms of governments, many not democracies, which essentially made it illegal for countries to attack another, regardless of their politics.

Snerd