Iraq Was Not A Preemptive War
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
Follow Nathan Gonzalez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/engagingiran
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
For all the political bantering, I wonder whether there aren't sublimated psychological explanations for the way people handle the subject of Saddam Hussein. Included among the many firsts that can be attributed to an earlier tyrant, Hitler, is that no other human had theretofore achieved such a monstrous impact on the entire world (and it wasn't for lack of serious competition). So we all then said, "we'll nip that kind of thing in the bud next time." Some people started being on the lookout for short men with little mustaches, stupid approach, but the main thing was, nip whatever the hell Hitler was in the bud next time.
Saddam Hussein tried to unite the Arab nations in a war with the U.S. and Israel when, during the Gulf War, he fired missiles into Israel. His intentions were so transparent that Israel chose not to play into his hands by responding. But it was not controversial; those were his intentions. Now people are reluctant to admit that one person is capable of causing so much damage to the world that he could be worth declaring war against. We explain that this was only part of what started the Iraq war. But his evil and power at that time were enough for me to be behind the start of the Iraq War. And then we should have left, the moment we deposed him and saw the mood against us starting to congeal.
Whatever his intentions - Iraq is not Germany. Germany was, and is, an industrial powerhouse, capable of mounting (if not indefinitely sustaining) a large-scale war on multiple fronts. Really - even before Gulf War I - what existential threat did Iraq pose to the US? And by the time of Gulf War II, after a decade of periodic bombing of their infrastructure and the privations of sanctions, can you seriously suggest that Iraq posed any serious threat to the US?
Another poster above writes of the "semantics" of preventive vs preemptive wars. Yes, there are occasions in which it will be difficult to determine whether a proposed war is one or the other. Hard to see how Iraq in 2003, under any interpretation, qualifies as preemptive.
When an individual in an unstable region has previously, as the head of a nation, demonstrated a willingness to take concrete actions to provoke a war between all the Arab nations and Israel/U.S
The 1% fallacy, also known as the 'black widow in the wood pile', is part of the error which let the idea of a preemptive war excuse what you call a 'preventive' war. That's the fallacy which confuses the magnitude of a danger with its likelihood. Extreme dangers merit extreme precautions. Trouble is, it is ONLY the incontestable fact of IMMINENT harm that justifies a preemptive war, and there is no way to determine the immediacy of a hypothetical event.
Maybe they succumbed to that fallacy and still think that way. McCain may even think that killing a state because its leader was nice to terrorists sent some kind of necessary message to prevent something.
Your right that doesn't justify any kind of war.
Our purposes, though, probably had to do with keeping the oil money from either a bad guy who would sponsor terrorism with it OR a good guy who would spend it on his people. Cheney's gospel is that the money needs to stay in oil company profits because only they have nothing more promising to do with it than to look for more oil. That's good for the whole industrialized world. But it don't justify war.
And lying to a people about the danger posed by the ruler of an innocent people to make us think we have to kill them is suborning murder.
Back in 2003 we thought Iraq was a preventive war (the President said there was no imminent threat) made legal by the fact that Saddam, by words and actions, refused to let the 1991 Gulf War end.
Recent analysis of captured Iraqi documents has revealed that Saddam was involved in supporting terrorist attacks against Americans and U.S. interests. So, even though we thought it was a preventive war, we now know the Iraq War was a preemptive war.
What utter rubbish. You right wing revisionists never give up. There are no such captured documents--that is a lie. Just like the lie that Iraq had WMD.
Never give up. When proved false just keep repeating the lie.
I think a lot of people here are missing the point of making a distinction between preventive and preemptive attacks. Preventive war is actually a sanitized term for what is universally agreed to be the SUPREME crime: wars of aggression and imperialism. Like someone already said, all wars are self-described as preemptive by the party starting it. But the most morally indefensible ones, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, the 6-days war, and including, I would argue, the Vietnam and Iraq wars, are actually preventive, in that there is no imminent attack to defend against.
The problem with letting McCain get away with calling the Iraq war preemptive is that it begs the question that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the US at the time, which it emphatically did not. Furthermore, we need to be aware that the neoconservatives are stealthily trying to confuse the difference so that they can make preventive war acceptable for the US to engage in.
The supreme crime would be a war without cause against a country with a representative government. Attacking countries run by crime families like Saddam's doesn't rise anywhere near attacking a peaceful democracy. Not even in the same universe.
The war in Iraq is not a preventive war: it's a war of aggression by one nation to steal the resources of another. We don't need fancy words for this. It's the same as wars conducted throughout history by aggressor nations willing to kill others, plunder, steal, loot, for the benefit of their rulers. The U.S. in Iraq is no different than the Spanish conquerers of Mexico who enslaved millions, stole everything, murdered many. No different than the Japanese and Germans in WWII who invaded, attacked, killed without remose in order to gain land or resources. Lipstick on a pig, that's what this whole line of "preventive" war is.
The war against Iran will be even further removed, since it is a war that the U.S. plans to wage against Iran as a mercenary force, doing the bidding of Israel, as communicated by their folks in Washington which includes unfortunately most of the politicians in D.C., from both parties. They just voted to give another $10 billion of our money to Israel, and Israel launders it back into the U.S. and uses part of it to bribe our politicians. Such a nice arrangement for them. Someone also profits from corruption, and most people lose. Iran has done nothing to the U.S. But just watch as the majority in both parties in D.C. back the white house in attacking Iran and murdering god knows how many people.
Nathan Gonzalez: ""The Iraq War, for one, was not a preemptive war, but a preventive one ... 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.""
NAB: "The war in Iraq is not a preventive war: it's a war of aggression"
SG: Seems to me we are still dealing with 'children leaving their definitions behind'. (See Snerd below at 2:48 pm). It's a form of "Definishi-ness", not unlike Colbert's Truthiness.
Note to Nathan ... In the Ame(R)ica of the 21st century, defining one's terms is just more 'unnecessary (R)egulation', it seems ...
Snerd
Yes, definitely a War of Aggression, regardless of what Bush, the neocons, or any other group wants to call it. Stop letting them define the terms.
By the way, Preventive War has the subtle implication that the action isn't really a war, it's an alternative action that prevents war. A bastardizing of terms, just like the "freedom" we gave Iraqis, or the "heck-of-a-job" that Brownie was doing after Hurricane Katrina.
If the media got into a discussion of Preventive War, that subtle implication would merely give an out to the pro-war fanatics -- but it's preventive! Yet the media would never sully the Office of President with using the phrase War of Aggression. Hell, they can barely bring themselves to say Occupation!
Andd the fools pushing these wars are mislabeled as NEO-CONSERVATIVES There is nothing remotely "conservative" about them.
They are properly labeled NEO-IMPERIALISTS.
So when are we going to get the resources? Sounds like we're losing money on the operation. I'd expect to be seeing $.12 /gallon gas by now. Since I'm not, you're wrong.
"We" aren't going to do anything BUT lose mony on the operation, but "we" were never intended to beneft from the war in the first place.
Bush and his buddies in the Oil biz have never, ever, made some much in such a short amount of time. All with our blood and on our dime. Life is sweet for the kleptocrats and crony capitalists in Bush's social circle..
"We" don't get the resources - the oil cartel does. All that terrible human and financial cost was in order to raise gas prices.
Iraq was a war of aggression, an international crime. At Nurnberg propagandists for the Nazi wars were tried and convicted of war crimes. I suggest Perle and Wolfowitz go first.
Attacking dictatorships isn't a crime, it's a passtime.
Here is what Abraham Lincoln had to say about the subject.
To William Herndon
. . . Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that
if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without
violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the territory
another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case,
the President is to be the sole judge.
Before going any further, consider well whether this is, or is not your
position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor
any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. . .
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall
deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever
he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow
him to make war at pleasure.S
power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If,
today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to
prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to
him, ³I see no probability of the British invading us² but he will say to
you, ³be silent. I see it, if you don¹t.²
The Canadians are safe, since their country is uninhabitable.
continued
The provisions of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress,
was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings and always
been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally,
if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our
Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions;
and they resolved to frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the
power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole
matter, and places our President where Kings have always stood.
Maybe I am missing something here, but people seem to be getting hung up on what the term 'PREVENTATIVE' sounds like and NOT using it as Nathan defines it. Seem to me that a lotta 'children have left the definition behind' , as it were ...
Isn't Nathan saying the "W"a(R) in Iraq was P-R-E-V-E-
For example he sayz::
"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."
Snerd
Oooops! I meant P-R-E-V-E-N-T-I-V-E ... Clearly, prior to posting, I did not do a 'preventative' edit.
Snerd
"PREVENTIVE WAR" IS NOT A GOOD TERM, although I'll agree that "preemptive war" isn't either, especially for Bush's unprovoked invasion and conquest of the (at the time) sovereign nation of Iraq. Tell me, what did the Iraq invasion "prevent" anyway? Oh yeah, I forgot, Saddam's developmnent of WMDs. In fact, come to think, "Unprovoked war of aggression" is probably the best phrase of all to describe the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Even the Johnson administration's excuse for occupying South Vietnam was better than what the Bush-Cheney war crime family was able to come up with.
The invasion was provoked by Saddam's lack of compliance with weapons inspections. At least try to resist lying to support your point.
Well no, that's not quite right. The Americans withdrew the inspectors to show that they were fed up. Their reason might have been frustration with Saddam's cat and mouse gamesmanship over the inspections, but the inspectors themselves wanted to stay, said they were making progress and bitterly objected to the American move. When they our guys SAID that Saddam had 'kicked them out' lots of Europeans learned that we are a nation of liars.
Pre-emptive war? War of prevention? If you're looking for the proper way to classify it, I believe you can call it an act of imperialism. Certainly it was packaged to make it palatable to enough people to let it get rolling but that doesn't change the nature of it.
The Bush Adminstration shopped for months for excuses that wouldn't be rejected out of hand. There were the aluminum tubes, and there was cheating on the embargo and there was the claim that Saddam was a threat to his neighbors and he had used chemical weapons on his own people (years earlier with hardly a word of criticism when it happened) and on and on. At the time, I was waiting for Bush to suggest that Saddam was wilfully and persistantly being a foreigner or he had too big a moustache or some other such nonsense. Anything at all would have done as long as it got them their war. Eventually they latched onto weapons of mass destruction and that let them move ahead.
There was never any thought of pre-emption or prevention or any other damned thing. The only thing that the Bush regime was worried about was that they wouldn't be able to get the war started. They're doing the same thing with Iran now, when they talk about Iran interfering in Iraq. It would be a lot closer to the truth to say that Iran is interfering with the American interference in Iraq.
Excuse me, have you served in the military or done anything besides win a prize for the opposite position you take in this blog. Seriously you need to stop thinking up angles to write a blog and get real. I'm an attorney more qualified than you to parse words - here is my parse - you have to get your ego out of the way and remember what got you started perhaps passionately as an idealist and cut out this divisive dialogue.
BIO: In 2002, Nathan received a prize from the University of California, Los Angeles, for his research on Iraq, through which he predicted that a U.S. invasion would bring about massive sectarian strife, pervasive anti-Americanism in Iraq.
A Blue Star Mom
I pray your child is safe and well IngeniosGirl. I don't think that Mr. Gonzalez is being divisive. His point is that it is necessary to understand the nature of threats that are worthy of sending people like your child off to war. I can think of no more a patriotic thing to do. peace out
Bush overestimated the Iraqis. Clearly they can only function under a murderous tyrant. Live and learn.
OVERestimated? Is that why we are still there after 5 years to keep the peace(read keep iron fisted control of the oil and how it's sold).
No, Bush Underestimated the size of his epeen, and the iraqis are handing it to him everyday.
Just think if someone invade the US, dont you think we'd be fighting for freedom EVERY F-ing Day?(well, actually they would probably manage this country better than this administration has...hmmm
I welcome our foreign overlords who will teach us to be a citizen of the world instead of it's imperialist leader. Maybe we need a good beat down..well at least the neocon bastards do..
So by McCains logic we need to immediatly strike China, Russia, England, France, Isreal, Pakistan, and India? Might be a bit tough for our forces to do all that at once...
YOU LEFT OUT NORTH KOREA. In fact, we're lucky that Kim Jong Il is too busy partying down to think of invading South Korea. If he ever lets somebody wedge that idea in his head, with all our forces deployed to Iraq, we would definitely be way up shit creek....
They have too many men under arms. We'd have to crisp them with nukes.
What this guy calls "preemptive" wars are still, in almost all instances, "crimes against peace" according to the doctrine of the postwar Nuremberg Trial and are accordingly war crimes. Exponents of aggressive war should be held accountable for their actions.
Dictatorships are not the same as peace.
Stop trying to be rational. Repeat after me. Wolfowitz, Pearl; Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Abrahms, Chalabi, oh yes and Bush. Come on now snap out of it. You’re attempting to have a preemptive
Sorry I forgot Liberman.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
