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

Comments

[schatsie]

This war is the same as the Mouse that Roared only backwards.... Instead of our giving the Iraqis money, we are stiffing the working classes with the taxes for this war... It would be a joke if it wasn't real. I would like Steve Martin (the comedian) to do something to show to the world that we all think that Bush and his Cabal are insane and overwhelmingly greedy...

[snesich]

Good distinction. People need to understand the difference.

If there's a guy with a criminal past who is outside my house, preparing to come in and get me and my family, I have the right to attack him before he tries to enter.

If there's a guy with a criminal past who is minding his own business, walking down the street, I don't have the right to attack him, even if he, in theory, could have the ability and the intent to break into my house at some time in the future.

[calirighty]

Yes your analogy is right. But you applied it wrong. This is NOT what happened. Our aircraft were fired on by Iraqi missile batteries. This happened over a several year period. It doesn't matter if it posed no direct effect to the United States itself. It was a violation of the terms of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War. At the same time as firing missiles at U.S. aircraft, Iraq was making weapons inspections increasingly difficult. This did present a growing threat. So your analysis of Iraq being the guy "minding his own business" is a false description of what actually took place.

[kdubbg]

In what way exactly were they making weapons inspections difficult? Ask the inspectors. David kay and Mohammed elBaradei both said the united states attacked before the job was completed.

Also. None of the reasons you now tout were brought before the Senate and the people of the United States. What was brought before us as causus belli were yellowcake and aluminum tubes.

More to the point. This is no longer a war and hasn't been for some time, it is an occupation and should properly be referred to as such.

[Sundialsvc4]

I would also quote one other excerpt fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression ... which is a big article that deserves careful reading:

", the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314, which defined the crime of aggression. This definition is not binding under international law, but it is often cited in opposition to military actions.

"This definition makes a distinction between aggression (which "gives rise to international responsibility") and war of aggression (which is "a crime against international peace"). Acts of aggression are defined as armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory, permitting other states to use one's own territory to perpetrate acts of aggression and the employment of armed irregulars or mercenaries to carry out acts of aggression. A war of aggression is a series of acts committed with a sustained intent."

It doesn't get much clearer than this. Treason against the People of the United States, leading the country to a war (involving hundreds of thousands of "armed irregulars or mercenaries" in addition to all those American troops...) for the very thinly disguised purpose of Conquest.

[calirighty]

Actually it gets much more clear. You just don't want to see it. You defined the "war of aggression" as as "crime against international peace". You are correct. However it was Iraq that was the aggressor. Not the United States. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That was a war of aggression. The U.S., backed by the U.N., invaded Iraq to in 1991 to liberate Kuwait and to prevent Iraq from deploying WMD's, which they were known have. Iraq agreed to a cease fire to end the Gulf War. That agreement included the declaration of ALL weapons and the VERIFIED destruction of certain weapons. The cease fire also required the FULL cooperation with weapons inspectors. The inspectors were not to be hindered in ANY way and Iraq was required to give full disclosure. Now fast forward ten years. Weapons inspectors are continuously harassed and led on wild goose chases. Road blocks were thrown up in front of inspectors and the inspectors were not granted full uninhibited access to all locations as required by the cease fire. Iraq at this time was also paying $25,000 to families of suicide bombers in Israel. Also at this time Iraq missile batteries began routinely firing on U.S. and coalition aircraft. Maybe you need to go take a few history lessons. You obviously know NOTHING about what you are talking about. This is NOT treason. It is the United States defending it's interests.

[Sundialsvc4]

The First Amendment clearly says that you are entitled to your opinions, with which I respectfully disagree.

I'm sure that in due time there will be another Nuremberg Trial ... the defendants will have their day in court at that time.

[LittleBrother]

Thanks for suggesting that we take a few history lessons, by which I presume you are referring to the history inside your head. It certainly seems like an exciting place-- in many ways like our everyday reality, but with surprising twists and turns.

I will definitely consider subscribing to your newsletter after I get caught up on my backlog of other recommended fiction.

[Sundialsvc4]

The correct term is not "preventive war," but "war of aggression."

This is not a term that you're going to hear in the press, though, because of this little quote you can read from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime:
"Under the Nuremberg Principles, the supreme international crime is that of commencing a war of aggression, because it is the crime from which all war crimes follow. The definition of such a crime is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances. Also, participating in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any such act constitutes such a crime."

Further, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression:
"Wars waged for the clear purposes of territorial aggrandizement or conquest are wars of aggression. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense, not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, and not sanctioned by Article 51 of the UN Charter) can be considered wars of aggression..."

So what we actually have, ladies and gentlemen, is both Treason and multiple War Crimes, committed by the present leaders of the United States of America and of which, I assure you, they are extremely aware.

[Squirtapotamus]

The Bush Regime sold Iraq as a pre-emptive war. With this excellent post we now realize it was more like a preventive war. But even this distinction isn't entirely accurate. I suggest one "follow the money" and see who it is that has benefitted from this perpetual war. The Military-I­ndustrial-­Congressio­nal complex has made out like bandits. They wage war for one reason, to make a profit. Yet like in Orwell's 1984, the public is manipulated into a frenzy of hate believing it is truly a noble fight, gullible when the public orator changes the name of the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia mid-sentence and the response from the public is "we've always been at war with Eastasia." From Wikipaedia: "Orwell's book explains that the war is unwinnable, and that its only purpose is to use up human labour and the fruits of human labour so that each superstate's economy cannot support an equal (and high) standard of living for every citizen. "

[PADDYWHACK]

You are asking a presenile McCain to make this distinction?,he hasn't mastered the muslim sects in Iraq.All ragheads are bad and need to be slaughtered preferably from the air.We need to cull the cowardly Neocon s***ts,who cover themselves with false patriotism and the flag.

[Henry]

Well, McCain does not appear to be a very bright bulb. What was his performance position in the graduation class at the Naval Academy? Fortunately he has little if any chance of becoming the leader of this country.

[rwe2late]

The entire "war on terror" is a preventative war supposedly undertaken to prevent "extremists" from having the capability to attack US interests. McCain accurately presented the neoCON view.

Such a course of preventative war in search of ultimate military security can logically only be accomplished by world conquest and domination (a la "enhanced" 1984). In such an endless conquest, human and legal rights will predictably be subordinated and abolished.

Perhaps the first question to ask is whether such a plan is really meant to make us all "secure", or is it meant to secure certain other interests of a few?