Thoughts on Preemptive War

An email conversation with a good friend brought to my mind the question of preemptive war, a la Iraq or other moves that may be made in the near-term future (read, making unpleasant things in Iran go "Boom!"). Is preemptive war ever justified? If so, under what conditions might it be justified, and what precautions must the preempting power take to make the war justified?

OK, so is it justified? I believe so, provided it is a defensive preemptive war. Hunh? A defensive preemptive war follows the old adage "the best defense is a good offense." Or, remove them before they can remove you. So, a preemptive war would, in my opinion, be justified if the preempting power is under a credible and real threat.

Notice a couple of things I did or did not say there. The threat must be credible and real. The power cannot simply make up a threat that may or may not occur in the future. For example, Brazil has the resources and technical know-how to one day develop nuclear weapons and then they might elect some anti-American leader or have their government fall in a coup d'etat and then become a threat to the world, therefore we need to attack them and take over their country so this doesn't happen. As I believe anyone can see, this is not a real and credible threat, it is a theoretically possible but highly unlikely threat, given current circumstances.

I also did not say an imminent threat. Democrats today have made a great deal of hay out of saying that Iraq was not an imminent threat. What they invariably fail to mention is that President Bush would have agreed with them. What the President said was that Iraq was a real and developing threat, which was a true statement. He also said that by the time the threat becomes imminent, it will be too late. This is not the 19th century. With the growing prevalence of WMD's, by the time the threat is imminent, it's too late to do anything preemptive, b/c we're back to Mutually Assured Destruction, the aptly named mad policy that if we blew them up, they'd blow us up, sop neither side would blow the other up. In other words, the entire world's safety hinged on which American or Soviet leader was the least sane. Sounds fun, no?

So, when is preemptive war suitable? Again, the threat must be real and credible. That is, there must be a real chance of an attack sponsored or supported by the enemy power that could occur sometime in the near or medium term future. Thus, in Iraq, there was credible evidence that Saddam Hussein either was creating or had the infrastructure and will necessary to create weapons of mass destruction. Now, in and of itself, such a thing would not be a justification for preemptive war. Many nations have some or all of this. Japan could create WMD's, probably in just a few months. Brazil probably could, too. For that matter, India and Pakistan, neither the most stable of nations, have them, as do the Chinese communists. The Saudis could probably buy the infrastructure necessary, as could the Aussies, most of the other gulf states, Indonesia, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Germany, and a whole passel of other countries. So, the will and ability to create WMD's is not enough.

Second point-Saddam Hussein had a long-standing historical antipathy towards the US. We whooped him bad in the Gulf War, humiliated him , then established sanctions and no-fly zones that heavily encroached on his own sovereignty. He was a hostile power with control over immense oil reserves, and the ability to threaten even more oil. Again, compelling, but not enough. We can't just go around attacking people who don't like us b/c they might be hostile. Then, we'd be invading all sorts of nations. Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, Bolivia, even historical allies like France and Germany. However, in Iraq, we had a nation with the will and ability to develop WMD's and a long-standing hostility to the US. Enough? Not quite.

Third, Iraq had connections with Al Qaeda. Yes, there were documented connections with Al Qaeda. No, Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attack. Yes, they could have been behind a second attack. Did Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein like each other? Not really, no. Irrelevant. They may have been malevolent and unpleasant entities, but they were not stupid. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. They might not like each other, but they hated us. Let Saddam Hussein develop his WMD's and give them to Al Qaeda, and we've got a brand new ugly mess. So, there was a chance of an attack supported by the aforementioned groups. There was a real and credible threat there.

Fourth, the preempting nation must take all reasonable precautions to protect civilians. Notice-reasonable. General William Tecumseh Sherman (may he rest in non-peace for what he did to Georgia) said that war is cruelty and you cannot refine it. Those who say war is hell are right. In war, people die, and sometimes those people are innocent civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sort of like people who die in drunk driving accidents or who are killed by a drug addict looking for cash for his next hit. However, the preempting power must take measures to make sure they are not needlessly endangering civilian lives by not purposely engaging in battle within civilian areas unless no other choice presents itself. If possible, troops must not cause unnecessary civilian casualties. However, let us remember that, like friendly fire incidents, civilian casualties will happen. It is a tragic part of a tragic policy born out of our own fallen nature.

Fifth, the results of the war must be less pleasant than the prospects of continued "peace". Remember, the absence of active war does not necessarily mean peace. For reference, consider the Cold War. We weren't shooting at the Red Army, they weren't shooting at us, but it was not peaceful. Also remember, war is never a good choice. It's always a bad choice. However, remember, not all problems have a bad and good solution. Sometimes, the solutions to problems are a series of messy solutions, and you have to choose the least messy. Thus, war is not a good solution, but sometimes it is the best, or at least the least bad option.

Sixth, all other options must have been exhausted, as best as possible. In other words, you have to seek out a diplomatic solution, if one remains possible. Here's what I mean-you must talk to someone until it becomes clear that they're just talking to buy themselves time to get what they want. Think Iran. Why is Iran talking? Probably to buy time to develop their own WMD's. Iraq was not interested in peaceful coexistence with the West. We tried however many UN resolutions (not that those are any good), sanctions, even isolated airstrikes during the Clinton years. Some of them were even legitimate strikes, not just attempts to distract form various scandals. Times had changed on 9/11. We could no longer afford to talk our enemies to death. If they weren't going to listen, if they were going to develop these threatening technologies and give them to our enemies who'd already hit us, then we had to stop them, even if it meant war. Plus, there was the added benefit of potentially building an Arab democracy in the middle of the Mideast, starting the "virus" of democracy that could unravel the extremism present in the Mideast and replace them with prosperous democracies. Remember, prosperous democracies do not make war on one another. It's too hard on the nice furniture and fine china.

So, is preemptive war legitimate? Yes, provided there is a real and credible threat. Notice, I did not say perfect intelligence was a requirement. Sometimes we have bad information that looks good. That is why much care must be taken in launching preemptive war. One of the best statements I heard about Iraq was, consider this-if all our information was bad, if there were no WMD's, no current relationship with Al Qaeda, no real and credible threat despite the mountains of intelligence saying there was, it's not like we were knocking off the Iraqi George Washington. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy. He and his sons had rape rooms for pity's sake. The guy was a modern day Hitler, only less pleasant. Even if all our credible information was bad and the threat was a theoretical and hypothetical threat, the end result was the deposing of a madman and replacing him with a representative democracy. Even with bad intel, that's not a bad result. However, based on all available intel, did Iraq represent a real and credible threat to the US and had we taken enough time to find other solutions? I believe so. Your response might be different, but I hope this helps in considering other policy events in the future.