Pre-Emptive Policy

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

- President George Bush, January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address

These words created the United States policy of preemption - a policy that has been severely criticized. However, the criticism may be misplaced. It is not so much the policy that is flawed, it is George Bush’s implementation of the policy.

Every nation has the right to defend itself. When a nation can show that a real threat exists whereby military action may be taken against it by another, then the threatened nation should have the right to protect itself by taking the offensive against the threatening country. Israel was faced with just such a choice when it took military action on June 5, 1967 against Egypt and started the Six-Day War. There were pacts between Egypt and other Arab states providing that an attack on one would be deemed to be an attack on all. Israel attacked Egypt and eliminated nearly 400 Egyptian aircraft in an attempt to secure its own safety. Few if any criticize Israel’s decision to take preemptive steps to protect itself. Rather the criticism is what Israel has done with the land that it acquired as a result of the war.

Thirty-four years later, the same holds true. If a nation can show that there is a real threat against it, then that nation should be able to take military action to secure that nation’s security. If the United States is able to show that another nation or a group supported by that nation, is a military threat to it, then the United States has the right to preemptively prevent that nation for attacking the United States. The recent failure of the policy has been George Bush’s failure to show that such a threat actually existed.

Bush reluctantly went to the United Nations to make a case for the War in Iraq. Then when the case was made, there was not sufficient support to show that Iraq was a threat to the United States or other nations, nor was there a showing that military intervention was the only way for any threat Iraq may have posed to have been disposed of. The U.N. inspectors consistently reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no showing that the “no fly zone” was ineffective. There was no showing that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. Ultimately, there was a failure to show that there was a threat which justified preemptive action.

A distinction needs to be made between the idea of preemption and its legitimacy and George Bush’s irresponsible implementation of the policy. Future presidents should not be hamstrung from use of the preemptive policy because Bush lied to the nation regarding the threats which were presented to it. Rather, the nation and the world should be more diligent in holding any future administration accountable to show that there truly is a threat looming prior to allowing a preemptive war from being waged.