While it's debatable concerning whether the phrase "pre-emptive self-defense" is self-contradictory, it's definitely scary for anyone who's studied history at all. Wars are often started over suspicions that the other side is secretly plotting aggression. Deterrence has characterized international power politics over the past 50 years - and this has worked very well. Even when hot war between powers has come into play - like in the Korean War - deterrence functioned even then on a secondary level. Both the Americans and Chinese were unwilling to escalate until the other side had done so first. Thus, both sides were extremely reluctant to do so. In fact, the only reason Chinese and Americans killed each other is because the US did not regard Mao's threat of intervention if we crossed a boundary to be credible. It was. This mistake was not repeated. While a pre-emptive policy makes sense regarding terrorist organizations, I'm not sure it does regarding states. There's simply too much room for abuse, and for deadly mistakes. This is not to say that an attack must be direct - if there's evidence that Iraq is aiding Al Queda directly in its war upon the US, fine. That's an exercise in deterrence. But because they might in the future? By Bush's new standard, nukes would almost certainly have flown in the Cuban missile crisis. We would probably have had war in the Taiwan Straits. And it's likely that the Korean War would have "gone nuclear." And why even call it self-defense? It's not. He's making a case for "just war." If he b elieves in it... well, he should at least call it what it is. But he seems unwilling to, because the idea that the US could act w/out the comforting belief that hte action is merely self-defense makes some people squeamish. If he believes he's justified, he should just say so, and stop couching his decisions in inaccurate but comfortable terms. This departure from a policy that has been remarkably successful for decades frightens me. While the possible rise of global terrorism does require alterations in US foreign policy, the complmete amendment of our state-to-state foreign policy seems a vast mistake.
Wild, baseless speculation.... come on, I hope you don't think people will actually believe that nonsense. You're better than that. Would you prefer to launch an attack *after* another 9/11-style tragedy occurs just so that you can justify war as being "in self-defense?" What innacurate terms has Bush used so far? Bush did "say so" when he addressed the United Nations.
This is the result of very simple theory. Deterrence theory can be reduced to very simple, everyday language: Don't do something, and neither will I... but if you do, you'll pay for it. Excellent detailed case studies exist (and have been overdone in graduate schools across America) concerning all 3 of those situations. They're all situations in which deterrence worked perfectly. Indeed, in the CMC and the Korean War situation, there were actually voices to the contrary, that urged a pre-emptive strike (and in the CMC, we know that there were voices in Moscow urging one, too). Cooler heads prevailed. Deterrence carried the day. The world was safe. If our strategy becomes pre-emptive, then it's only a question of threshold. How sure do we have to be before we attack? I don't want that to be the determination. Especially with a hawkish administration. [quoteWould you prefer to launch an attack *after* another 9/11-style tragedy occurs just so that you can justify war as being "in self-defense?" [/quote] Learn to argue by dealing with the language I present, not that would be easier to counter. I never said any such thing. But it's not self-defense. Pre-emptive self-defense. He's talking about "just war." He believes that we have a casus beli against people we believe to be plotting against us. Hypothetically, even if we do, the term "self-defense" is not accurate.
One addition: While it may seem foolish at the prima facie level to wait for someone else to attack you... the consequences of pre-emptive strikes are enormous, since they encourage the opposition to behave the same way against you. Instead of rational discourse, paranoia and suspicion results in war. This would be a return to pre-WW2 methodology.
I just love it when somebody demands that we use restraint and morality in our decisionmaking in regard to Iraq. Our opponent sure doesn't. The British marched in a straight line (because that was one of the "rules of war" at the time), and they got slaughtered by the American colonists in the Revolutionary War. Why? Because they didn't follow the rules set forth by the British. Let's not have the US go the same way in this conflict.
haven - The difference in this situation is Iraq is still about a year away from going nuclear. We are dealing with an inferior foe. Therefore a preemtive strike raises no potential danger. The Air Force already controls the skies over Iraq. It would be relatively easy for our tanks to roll over Baghdad quickly. In my opinion, we need to take out Hussein and the Iraqi weapons programs now.
So you're saying that the support for your argument is some theory. Oh that's convincing. Theories and paradigms change over time, as underlying conditions change. I suggest you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Your theories and case studies do not persuade even the most casual political observer. Theories and case studies are prepared in the ivory towers of academia, where people are congratulated for using phrases like "prima facie" and "casus beli". In the real world, you know where these theories and case studies are actually "implemented", you have an ever-changing sequence of events. How can you be so rigid as to apply the time, tired theory to a new era in warfare, like what we have today? This isn't about Germany rolling tanks into France or The Soviet Union pointing nukes at us. This is about covert terrorism that has no face or location. Changing times call for changing approaches to the situation.
problem with this is the other side has to buy into this logic too...if they're not playing the same game, you get nuked first...and all the retribution in the world doesn't make up for losing a city. the russians believed in deterrence theory too...radical religious freaks don't subscribe to that notion.
from the new policy statement released today: "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military buildup in hopes of surpassing or equaling the power of the United States." So that's the bottom line, IMHO. We don't ever want anyone else (and anyone could be a "potential adversary" as soon as they disagree with us, right?) in the world to compare with us in terms of military strength. So we want to dictate the rules (of any topic for which we have some interest) to the rest of the world, ad infinitum. When we started bombing the barren plains of southern Asia and CNN went with the "America Strikes Back" logo for a few weeks, I was wondering if they even had the slightest bit of ironic awareness of "The Empire Strikes Back." If this admin. has its way, and I guess it will, we will truly become the Empire in some very real sense internationally. Our motives will be good, to put a positive spin on it, but our storm troopers will be ever prepared to invade disagreeable states or to yank disagreeable posters from their computers if they type so much as "peace be upon him" to a friend of "questionable" background. Anyway, good luck to the hawks with controlling the world. It's an awfully big place with an awfully large number of independent minds.
wow...could you blow that out of proportion any more than you just did?? we're the dreaded evil empire seeking to control the galaxy??? hardly...we get criticized all the time for not getting involved in places where others feel we should (see Bosnia). Then when we do get involved, we are criticized for how we did it (see Bosnia). fantasyland is fun to visit...but we make policy based on real national security interests.
Actually a History professor told me that this was largely a myth. The Americans were using the exact same military strategy book the British had. The Muskets and artillery being used by both sides prevented the supposed 'Guerilla warfare' that colonists were supposed to have used. In some smaller skirmishes they did accomplish a quick ambush, but every major battle was used with standard European formations on both sides. Also the phrase 'Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes' was standard military practice at the time, and in every military handbook in europe.
Iraq has had chemical and biological weapons for over a decade. Even when the U.S. fought them over Kuwait, they didn't use them against the U.S. or Israel. Iraq has never used the bio or chemical weapons against any country that could wipe it out. Even when engaged in war. They also have never supplied any terrorist organizations with biological or chemical weapons in the many years they've had them. Saddam, like all rogue dictators wants to survive. Using deterence seems to have already worked on preventing bio/chem attacks. Deterence and containment seems to be working already so far, why not keep it up. Also let's give the inspectors a chance before attacking. War should be a last resort. Since there is a definite option no matter how suspicious it is then we need to take it.
I completely agree with Trader_Jorge's openning salvo. Bush is not couching his belief in justified self-defense. He is being extremely clear with his intention and belief that this is national security defense. as a quick aside, some reports are saying that more Security Council members are backing action, but won't say it publically. This is not unprecedented. Many times in the past a member coalition has formed without a Security Council vote, knowing that the USSR would veto it. Haven, no one really has used WMD before as a first strike or terrorism...although those two planes were pretty massively destructive. Is there even a conventional weapon that could take those down on one hit. Because no one really has used WMD, you can throw all your "theories" out the window. This is a new paradigm. Self-defense can most certainly be a first strike. If your argument is that a strike of any sort can't make us safe, or actually make us worse,,,then say it. I happen to disagree. If we have proof that the Al Qaeda is reforming in Iraq, and Saddam is willing to sell them weapons that's he's illegally making, then a first strike to take out all the hardware, communicaions and logistics of waging big destruction is in order. <blockquote>Originally posted by Trader_Jorge I suggest you read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. </blockquote>Let me guess. History of Science by Van Helden.
WARNING! WARNING!! HALF-TRUTH!!!! HALF-TRUTH!!! you say this like they've NEVER used chemical weapons. they used them on the Kurds in their own country. and how do you KNOW they have never supplied any terrorist orgs with bio/chem weapons??? that sounds like a giant assumption.
No, it was some political philosphy class with Dr. Stein. I can't remember the name, but I think it was Poli 333 (it's been a few years). I don't think any sane human would read that book voluntarily.
Well, one person's fantasyland is another administration's reality. We're not talking about Bosnia -- that was old, outdated policy. Or have you really read the new policy statement? And how exactly does Iraq impinge on OUR national security interests? Nobody has answered this basic question. Is Saddam evil? Yes. Gassed his own people? Yes. Scary to his next-door neighbors. Absolutely. Preparing to launch any sort of attack on the United States in any way? Now there's a fantasy for you. Just my opinion. Label it "fantasy" and dismiss it if you will. As for the Empire analogy, ask non-US citizens around the world for their reaction to this new pre-emptive policy. Seriously, see what they think of the analogy. Any internationals want to chime in here? And I didn't say "evil," you did. I say well-intentioned.
True. For the most part, "guerilla warfare" originated in Spain with the opposition to the Napoleonic invasion (beginning May 2, 1808). You know..."guerra" meaning war and all - it stems from that.
1. ummmm...evil aptly describes the empire of the star wars movies...i suppose we could play semantics and moral relativism and argue over the definition of evil and whether or not it was evil from the perspective of a stormtrooper if you wish...i'd rather not. you drew a comparison between america striking back against al qaeda to the empire of george lucas' imagination/creation. THAT is what i meant by blowing it out of proportion. 2. ask all the internationals you want...and then ask them if they're gonna need us to bail them out or protect them implementing this very policy. israel is an ally and a neighbor to iraq...i bet they won't have much problem with it. 3. you guys all talk about how unreal an iraqi attack on the united states is...no one, no one, no one is saying they're going to attack in a conventional manner...no one is saying they're preparing to launch missiles at New York...what we're saying is that he would turn over WMD to terrorist operatives who would use those here...is that really such a fantasy??
