The Doctrine of Pre-Emption: A Strategy of Realism
RCMan
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 15, 2003
Even as American forces complete their liberation of Iraq and the
world celebrates their victory, domestic opponents of the Bush
Administration have stepped up their attacks on the national security
policy that led to the result. In particular, they have challenged the
doctrine of military "pre-emption," which is the policy of readiness
to initiate action, in order to quell an imminent threat. In short, to
take the battle to the enemy camp.
Opponents argue that pre-emption is a radical departure from previous
American foreign policies; that it is an immoral doctrine; and that it
sets a dangerous example for other nations. These objections are held
to be so grave as to justify fracturing the traditional bi-partisan
consensus on national defense and dividing the home front -- even in
the face of enemies who are supporters of terror, armed with weapons
of mass destruction, and motivated by religious fanaticisms that
appear impervious to rational dissuasion and traditional military
deterrence.
At the very outset, there is a problem in taking these arguments as
seriously as their proponents intend them. The same voices raised no
similar complaint during the eight foreign policy years of the Clinton
Administration. Yet every use of military force by the Clinton
administration can be reasonably said to have been an act of
pre-emption according to the standards invoked in the present liberal
attack. These actions include the missile strikes on the Sudan,
Afghanistan and Iraq, and the air attacks of the Kosovo War whose goal
was a regime change in Belgrade.
The 1998 missile strike on the Sudan was an unannounced, unprovoked
attack that destroyed that Third World nation's only medicine factory.
Yet it provoked no opposition outcry on the left. The Clinton air
strike violated every principle of the current liberal critique of
Bush foreign policy. The target of the attack was an alleged chemical
weapons factory (which the Administration subsequently was forced to
concede contained no chemical weapons facility). Yet, there were no
inspections, UN or otherwise, preceding the attack to determine
whether the factory was actually producing chemical weapons, as the
Clinton White House claimed. There was not even a presidential phone
call to the head of a state with whom the United States had diplomatic
relations to request such an inspection.
The strike in the Sudan was ordered without a UN resolution, without a
congressional authorization and without approval from the Joint Chiefs
of Staff (who actually opposed it). Yet no critic of the current Bush
foreign policy on Iraq expressed concern over the aggression. This is
in dramatic contrast to the present critique of a war policy that is
based on 12 years of disregarded UN resolutions and thwarted UN
inspections, and two congressional resolutions (under two Presidents)
supporting a regime change by force.
The 1998 decisions by the Clinton Administration to fire 450 cruise
missiles into Iraq (and 72 into Afghanistan) were also justified by no
attack on the United States on the part of Afghanistan or Iraq, and
were not authorized by either Congress or the United Nations. The
Clinton air war against Iraq was initiated in response to the
expulsion of UN inspectors by Saddam Hussein. But no act of Congress
nor UN Security Council resolution legitimized this military assault.
Clinton's attack on Afghanistan was justified by Administration
officials as a response to the blowing up of two U.S. embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania by unknown terrorists. But the Clinton
Administration provided no more evidence of a connection between
Afghanistan and those attacks than was provided by the Bush
Administration of the connection between the World Trade Center
bombing and Iraq. In both cases, the judgment to launch a military
response was made by those charged with responsibility for America's
national security. But in only one case did the absence of a proven
connection become the basis for a critique of the action.
The Clinton-led attack on Yugoslavia was a pre-emptive war that was
not even justified as "national defense." Slobodan Milosevic and the
government of Yugoslavia did not threaten, let alone attack the United
States. There were no Serbian terrorist organizations linked to
attacks on the United States or American citizens, nor was Yugoslavia
accused of harboring such organizations.
Slobodan Milosevic and the government of Yugoslavia were never
regarded by anyone as constituting a national security threat to the
United States or the NATO alliance. Yet, without provocation, the
Clinton Administration organized a coalition attack on Yugoslavia from
the air and proceeded to bomb targets in that country until a regime
change was achieved. The targets included the capital city of
Belgrade, with as large a civilian population as Baghdad. Yet there
was no UN resolution authorizing this attack, nor did liberal critics
of the present Bush policy complain about the lack of one. Nor was
there a congressional declaration of war or authorization (as there
was in Iraq) for the use of force. The attack on Yugoslavia was a
pre-emptive war to save the lives of Albanian Muslims. There was no
other rationale for conducting it, nor did anyone in the United States
or Europe ask for one.
Nor is there anything new in the doctrine of pre-emption itself. The
First World War, in fact, was a pre-emptive war from the American
point of view. America did not enter the war because it was attacked
(it wasn't), nor did Germany declare war on the United States. For
three years Americans had watched the war from the sidelines. It was a
European conflict in which America had had no national stake. Then, in
1917, the United States decided to go to war to prevent a German
victory, claiming that its goal was "to make the world safe for
democracy."
The second war with Germany was different, but only slightly. The very
same people who now claim to oppose pre-emption have long faulted the
United States for remaining neutral during the Spanish Civil War of
the 1930s. If fascism had been defeated in Spain, they argue, there
might not have been a Second World War at all. It's an interesting
point. But it is also an argument for a pre-emptive policy. Lives
could have been saved (in fact tens of millions of lives) if the
United States and the Western powers had taken the initiative and used
force to stop Hitler early -- in the Rhineland, in Austria and in
Czechoslovakia, before he was able to amass the military strength that
made the Second World War inevitable.
The war against Hitler was itself pre-emptive. It is true that Hitler
declared war on the United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
But Hitler did not attack the United States. The United States went to
war with Hitler to pre-empt the possibility of a German attack on the
United States.
Thus, pre-emptive war has made sense in the past. Why should not the
same prudent defense policy make sense now? In fact, it has. The
pre-emptive war against Iraq, actually began a dozen years ago at the
end of the Gulf War when the United States and Britain instituted the
"no-fly zones" to protect the Kurds from potential poison gas attacks.
This was an invasion of Iraqi air space. But no one besides Iraq and
its allies objected, and the Kurds thrived under the protection. The
present victory over Saddam Hussein has removed the threat of his
weapons of mass destruction as well as the terrorism he has for so
long sponsored.
The threat of pre-emptive war is a form of protection. It tells Iran
and Syria -- the sponsors of Hizbollah and Hamas and al-Qaeda
terrorists who have killed American citizens -- that the consequences
of their covert aggressions can be deadly, to them. Syria and Iran
have already done no less than the Taliban regime in Afghanistan when
we attacked it. Should the United States tie its hands and force its
citizens to wait for another World Center scale attack before allowing
them a response?
Critics of the war in Iraq, claimed that the Administration should
have allowed Saddam Hussein more time to continue his evasion of the
UN resolutions and focused on the nuclear threat from North Korea
instead. What credibility would American demands to North Korea have
had, however, if we had continued to appease Saddam and ignore his
defiance of UN resolutions? Far from being a distraction, the
pre-emptive war against Saddam Hussein has enhanced the ability of the
United States to deter North Korea from its sinister plans.
In sum, the arguments against the doctrine of pre-emption are
historically baseless and logically incoherent. On the other hand,
they present obstacles to a national consensus that can prove
dangerous. Division at home on matters of national security is the
surest way to undermine the credibility of an American deterrent and
create the possibility of an enemy assault. Critics should think twice
before encouraging such outcomes.
Daniel
> world celebrates their victory,
Sorry, we live on a different planet. So far I've only heard condemnation
from the international community over the whole affair, demonstrations
across the planet against the war and everyone from presidents to peasants
speaking out against the flagrant breach of international laws and
conventions it represents. The occupation has brought special condemnation
from human rights groups, development groups, and even the World Bank aren't
willing to touch it.
As for the rest of the fairy tale, where the nation generously ensures
everyone in the world has equal access to cruise missile strikes if the
administration decides they need it, it's as repulsive an example of some
American's ideology as exists. Is wrath the only solution to every issue?
I'd rather that the government spent as much effort working out how to get
food and water to the 800 million + across the world who are undernourished.
Instead of ensuring that 2, 3, 4 wars can be fought simultaneously across
the world, ensure that 2, 3, 4 thousand schools are being built across the
world each year in America's name. Instead of spending $200 billion on joint
strike aircraft, spend $20 billion on fighting preventable diseases across
the world.
Is this really the best you can do America? Is being able to smash any part
of this world, and having the excuse to do it the best idea an entire nation
is capable of? I don't believe it is, and know that there are many among you
who look at these cries for perpetual war and say no. How dare anyone
imagine that violence, death, destruction are to be the hallmark of your
nation. Is this the "realism" you want to be known for or is it being part
of a free nation willing to bridge the gaps of language and culture to build
a better world for us all? Do you want the world to cower from you or to
share a vision of peace and prosperity? How can you demonstrate the value of
freedom when your most precious freedom is to be able to attack whomever you
wish wherever they are?
The language of violence has become as cheap to this administration as the
lives it destroys. Hatred is being bred into the consciousness of the nation
making everyone is a threat, everyone a potential enemy. See through the
lies, America, and come back into the light able to help join the world
together in the fight for human development and justice for all.
Daniel
http://i.am/rayolite
Paul
taxonomy today. I thought the neo-conservative philosophy was
idealistic, not realistic. (For example, they reject Kissinger's
realpolitik.) I think a realist would long ago have figured out that the
"solutions" the USA implements actually result in a lot of it's current
problems. You reap what you sow sort of deal. Horowitz's essay is
rhetorically boring; who cares what Clinton did? He was more republican
than the republicans and appears to be only a paid apparatchik for the
dynasty. Hey, I just learned what ad hominem is, I just had to work that in!
http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--316921-,00.html
Paul
Error in line:
He was more republican than the republicans and appears to be only a
paid apparatchik for the dynasty.
Should read:
He was more republican than the republicans. Horowitz appears to be only
a paid apparatchik for the dynasty.
M a r k D . . . .
news:v9pgr22...@corp.supernews.
> I think a realist would long ago have figured out that the
> "solutions" the USA implements actually result in a lot of its current
> problems.
Well spotted, sir! And the reason people don't figure this out is that the
American public as a whole is shatteringly ignorant of what its government
does around the world: they haven't got a *clue* what Washington does in
their name. In fact, they don't even get told what happens to the tax
dollars that the CIA gets: the CIA (and the DIA too) actually violates the
Constitution in this regard, since Article 1, Section 9 requires government
agencies to submit their budgets at regular intervals to Congress for
review.
M.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.467 / Virus Database: 266 - Release Date: 01/04/2003
Ray Ellis
news:b7i47g$ih$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
Roy
"Ray Ellis" <raye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:nR4na.8503$P57....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
I agree also. Well said.
RCMan
So move to Canada. Or better yet, France.
We don't need you.
RCMan
> Ok, I am getting confused,
You've been confused for some time, apparently.
> but I have just started to study the neocon
> taxonomy today. I thought the neo-conservative philosophy was
> idealistic, not realistic.
'neocon' is a synonym for Jews. It's the far left's way of being
anti-semitic while remaining, in their own eyes, politically correct.
You're pathetic.
(For example, they reject Kissinger's
> realpolitik.) I think a realist would long ago have figured out that the
> "solutions" the USA implements actually result in a lot of it's current
> problems. You reap what you sow sort of deal.
9-11 was a 'reap what you sow sort of deal' for terrorists and
terrorism.
> Horowitz's essay is
> rhetorically boring;
And you're rhetorically blithering.
> who cares what Clinton did? He was more republican
> than the republicans and appears to be only a paid apparatchik for the
> dynasty.
And you're an unpaid apparatchik for Barnam and Bailey?
>Hey, I just learned what ad hominem is, I just had to work that in!
It sounded like you practiced it in the shower.
> http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3230--316921-,00.html
Daniel
>
> We don't need you.
You need to learn that people are people whoever they are and wherever
they're from. Cut out the paranoia and see the world and its people as an
opportunity rather than a threat. People are not "Americans" or "Our Kind of
Americans" or "Not Americans". They're human beings first. Do not bow to
your leaders like a slave, do not bow to your flag like it's a God. Learn
what it means to be free. If you can only see people as "American" or "Not
American", your mind has already lost the fight for freedom.
Daniel
http://i.am/rayolite
Roy
"RCMan" <rcma...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3776526f.03041...@posting.google.com...
America, Love it or Leave it. What a tired, stupid-ass mantra. Heaven forbid
someone post something that would encourage thoughtful uses of our time and
money, Mr. DUMB-ASS (YOU) has to say, "yeah, well, get out". Brilliant.
Roy
> And you're an unpaid apparatchik for Barnam and Bailey?
It's "Barnum", you dumb fuck!
RCMan
People either are "American" or "Not American". Making that statement
is not a sign of prejudice or ignorance. It's a simple statement of
fact.
Fortunately, most Americans have a far more realistic view of the
world and the people in it than you do.
Daniel
the war against debate. While they've failed to completely destroy the word
"Liberal", "anti-patriotism" or "Anti-American" is as powerful a charge as
cries of "Communist" were in the past. Since when do they have the right to
define what being an American means? Since when does being an American
become more important that every other character trait a person can have?
America is free because it's a diverse and thriving mixture of culture, of
peoples, of religions, of ideologies, not because it hides behind million
dollar missiles pointed at every third world country that might one day rise
up against it. What kind of America do people really want - a cowering
nation with enough arms to keep the world under control or a proud nation
able to demonstrate the best qualities of the human spirit?
Roy
Your world is very small. You look at the world as black and white, yes or
no, with no room in the middle. That is not reality. Bush's message of "You
are with us or you are against us" does not leave room for what is REALLY
going on, people who want dictators deposed but do not want war, they fit
into a gray area you are not allowing for.
Daniel
> is not a sign of prejudice or ignorance. It's a simple statement of
> fact.
>
> Fortunately, most Americans have a far more realistic view of the
> world and the people in it than you do.
I've never been called "Not American" before, and I'm sure that 5.5 billion
other people on the planet will welcome their new classification as "Not
American" along with me. If "Not American" is what the rest of the world is
to you, if "American" or "Not American" is really as developed as your
understanding of other people and other cultures is, this is a frightening
reality. As for your view of the world and the people in it, share it with
me. Are "Not Americans" all threats or is there more to us than that?
Daniel
http://i.am/rayolite
johnebravo836
Roy wrote:
[snip]
> Your world is very small. You look at the world as black and white, yes or
> no, with no room in the middle. That is not reality. Bush's message of "You
> are with us or you are against us" does not leave room for what is REALLY
> going on, people who want dictators deposed but do not want war, they fit
> into a gray area you are not allowing for.
To want dictators deposed while at the same time being unwilling to
accept what is typically the only practical means for deposing them,
namely war, is to wish for the impossible. Dictators, being what they
are, tend not to respond to much other than force.
RCMan
You've constructed the straw man in which I am saying "Not American"
equates to "Bad".
I've said no such thing nor have I called you "Not American". Go back
and read the thread.
As I said, people ARE either "American" or "Not American". That you
seem to think that is not simply a statement of fact indicates you
have a rather complex delusional system, can't reason logically, or
simply can't read English.
Daniel
> accept what is typically the only practical means for deposing them,
> namely war, is to wish for the impossible. Dictators, being what they
> are, tend not to respond to much other than force.
The US has always supported "Dictators" when it's in "The Interests of the
Nation", whether a Democrat or a Republican is in power. It's not just an
American thing of course, there probably isn't a country in the world which
hasn't relations with a dictatorship somewhere. Even if a country isn't a
dictatorship, it might have abysmal human rights records in any case. Saudi
Arabia has a dictatorship and poor human rights for instance, but this is a
convenient dictatorship. China was granted most favoured trading partner
status under Clinton if I recall, and there are no illusions about its human
rights or the nature of its dictatorship. Pakistan was a bad dictatorship
until it pledged support after 9-11, and now it's another acceptable face of
dictatorship.
I was charmed by these questions, which come from time.com as part of
worksheets for children in schools. Isn't it sad that children can ask these
questions but adults act like treason is committed if the subject is
broached?
"Currently as well as in the past, the U.S. has supported dictatorships for
tactical and political reasons. Do you think there is such a thing as a
benevolent dictatorship? Should the U.S. only support democratic
governments? What dictatorships does the U.S. currently support? What
dictatorships does the U.S. condemn? Why do you think the U.S. supports some
dictatorships and not others?"
http://www.time.com/time/classroom/printout/0,8816,428154,00.html
Until human rights are treated with the same respect as economics,
dictatorships, good and bad, and democracies, good and bad, will continue to
mistreat their citizens. Human Rights don't even have the same profile in
the media as Golf. They're just not important enough. Think of what would
happen if a country was found to be violating a trade agreement. Instant
reprisals. Human rights abuses? Well, that might get a warning, a
disaproving glare, if they're some country we don't like this month, it's
the end of the world. War is a human rights abuse in itself, not the first
or best solution to them. What we need are international institutions to
protect human rights such as a World Court, better monitoring of human
rights and the understanding that human rights are more important than the
politics of whoever is in Congress, whoever is in Parliament, whoever is
Prime Minister, whoever is President. It's not like there's any mystery to
what's happening - the State Department monitors them faithfully each year
yet the country approves arms sales to some of the worst offenders.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/
Dictatorships happen because we accept them. Human rights abuses happen
because we accept them. Bombing everyone everywhere until they stop is
something children answering the time.com questions would never have
considered.
Daniel
http://i.am/rayolite
Daniel
To explain where the concept comes from, when you tell people to go live in
another country when they don't support your vision of being an American, it
does indicate that you have strong views on those you consider "American" or
"Not American". The statement that "Americans have a far more realistic
view..." also supports the idea you believe "American" to be a superior
concept. Those who are in the "Not American" category are not as favoured by
you in these examples as those who are in the "American" category. I'm glad
that you've made clear that it's not your intention to mentally divide the
global map in this fashion, and would be interested if you could elaborate
on your view the major issues as you see them for the world today. Famine
will claim more victims this year than terrorism in the past 100 years.
Preventable diseases will claim more victims this year than terrorism in the
past 100 years. More children will remain illiterate, more mothers will
loose their babies at birth, more people will lack access to clean water
this year than have been lost to terrorism in the past 100 years. Are these
not bigger issues than the perpetual debate on who's a threat to America and
who isn't?
Daniel
http://i.am/rayolite
RCMan
Ooooh, a spelling flame. Did you cum when you posted it?
Marie
RC, that was a particularly cogent analysis by Horowitz of the new
geopolitical realities we're now faced with. Bye the bye, note that
nobody refuted a single point made by the man. Not a one. It's enough
for these people to merely prattle on about peace, the UN and to
totally ignore historical context and very real issues of national
security and growing, Islamic terrorism. That, and attacking Jews,
does it for this crowd. And they're always sleeping when it's a
democrat waging these wars. Of course, when they're reminded of that,
they gloss right over this like they do everything else which doesn't
comport with their psychotic hatred of all things republican. You see,
that's the real root of the problem. Clinton could have nuked Baghdad
and all would have been just fine.
Cordially, Marie
Jez
news:<b7jkcc$hq5$1...@titan.btinternet.com>...
> > > So move to Canada. Or better yet, France.
> > >
> > > We don't need you.
You don't need your brain either by the sound of it.
You like being just another Brain-washed robot?
> >
> > You need to learn that people are people whoever they are and wherever
> > they're from.
> > Cut out the paranoia and see the world and its people as an
> > opportunity rather than a threat.
Indeed.
> People are not "Americans" or "Our Kind of
> > Americans" or "Not Americans". They're human beings first. Do not bow to
> > your leaders like a slave, do not bow to your flag like it's a God.
Learn
> > what it means to be free. If you can only see people as "American" or
"Not
> > American", your mind has already lost the fight for freedom.
>
> People either are "American" or "Not American". Making that statement
> is not a sign of prejudice or ignorance. It's a simple statement of
> fact.
Well, thank the Gods I am not American.
At least I live in a country where you could get a decent education.
>
> Fortunately, most Americans have a far more realistic view of the
> world and the people in it than you do.
That would be nice to see.
--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
Jez
"johnebravo836" <johneb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E9D9EA7...@yahoo.com...
And from what crazy bunch of 'experts' did you dig that crap up from?
Brian
Jez wrote:
> "johnebravo836" <johneb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3E9D9EA7...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >
> > Roy wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Your world is very small. You look at the world as black and white, yes
> or
> > > no, with no room in the middle. That is not reality. Bush's message of
> "You
> > > are with us or you are against us" does not leave room for what is
> REALLY
> > > going on, people who want dictators deposed but do not want war, they
> fit
> > > into a gray area you are not allowing for.
> >
> > To want dictators deposed while at the same time being unwilling to
> > accept what is typically the only practical means for deposing them,
> > namely war, is to wish for the impossible. Dictators, being what they
> > are, tend not to respond to much other than force.
>
> And from what crazy bunch of 'experts' did you dig that crap up from?
Its a thing called "reality"
Jez
"Brian" <olinshoo...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3E9F0F60...@erols.com...
Mmmm. You've not got much of a grasp on it yet though.
Brian
Jez wrote:
Where was I or the person I was agreeing with wrong?
Jez
> > > > > To want dictators deposed while at the same time being unwilling
to
> > > > > accept what is typically the only practical means for deposing
them,
> > > > > namely war, is to wish for the impossible. Dictators, being what
they
> > > > > are, tend not to respond to much other than force.
> > > >
> > > > And from what crazy bunch of 'experts' did you dig that crap up
from?
> > >
> > > Its a thing called "reality"
> >
> > Mmmm. You've not got much of a grasp on it yet though.
>
> Where was I or the person I was agreeing with wrong?
Dictators are indeed disgusting. But when they serve US interests no-body
makes a murmur of complaint.
Saddam was the US's 'darling' until he invaded Kuwait.
Then a little later when the Iraqi people attempted to dispose him
the USA PREVENTED them from doing so.
Then put in a regime of sanctions that strengthened Saddams hold on the
country.
As Chomsky put it recently.......
"The one constant is that the US must end up in control of Iraq. Saddam
Hussein was authorized to suppress, brutally, a 1991 uprising that might
have overthrown him because "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be
"an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" (by then an
embarrassment), which would rule the country with an "iron fist" as Saddam
had done with US support and approval (NYT chief diplomatic correspondent
Thomas Friedman). The uprising would have left the country in the hands of
Iraqis who might not have subordinated themselves sufficiently to
Washington. The murderous sanctions regime of the following years devastated
the society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely
for survival on his (highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods.
The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt
that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been
strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very
end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and
a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as
Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone
the same way, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know
Iraq best, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck (though one has to go to
Canada, England, or elsewhere to find their writings). But overthrow of the
regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave
Iraqis in charge."
In short the US supports all sorts of dictators, and doesn't give a damn
about
the people oppressed by them.