President Bush plans to issue a new national security strategy today reaffirming his doctrine of preemptive war against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, despite the troubled experience in Iraq.
"Pre-emption" as national policy
Bookmark Page
Link to site
Click
to comment
Links
Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the
American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which
dared not speak out--as Germany, France, Russia and Canada did speak
out--against
a
policy of pre-emptive war.
Preemptive
War: Is It Legal? By Stephen Murdoch
Embedded within the national security strategy is a
doctrine that some say dangerously expands the international law of self
defense.
The use of force is the bluntest and most destructive
tool available to a nation-state in the protection of its interests. The
question of when to permit countries to rely on this blunt instrument has
bedeviled presidents, kings, premiers, and prime ministers throughout the
20th century. For international lawyers today, the issue is as divisive as
it is important.
Definition:
Preemption, defined as the
anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack, has long been
accepted as legitimate and appropriate under international law. In the
new NSS, however, the administration is broadening the meaning to encompass
preventive war as well, in which force may be used even without evidence of
an imminent attack to ensure that a serious threat to the United States does
not "gather" or grow over time. The strategy also elevates preemption in
importance, and visibility, within the tool kit of U.S. foreign policy.
Example: Thursday, March 16, 2006 Preemptive Strike Out
Consequences: Usurping designated authority and procedures to act. Seizing authority which has not been granted. Commandeering weapons or resources to commit aggression against what may be only an assumed threat. Misappropriating funding, resources, or military hardware. Jumping the gun. Premature action which may be ill-advised if based on faulty intelligence. Reaction rather than proactive planning. Often an exercise in futility. Can be counterproductive and self-defeating, especially in military postures where intelligence has been compromised, altered, or cherry-picked.
While the use of preemptive force may be justified, it is not strategic. The use of preemption limits the credibility of a state and its future interests for peace. In order for states to secure the best strategic condition, they must maintain a reputation for consistency, trust, cooperation, and deterrence. In the long-run, by using preemption, a state suffers increased preemptive strikes as a result of destabilizing the international system and lacking the consistency required to avoid Prisoners’ Dilemmas. Without trust, not only are future Prisoners’ Dilemmas difficult to solve without violence, but also securing the cooperation of other states that may not be willing to risk interactions with an aggressive or unpredictable state. The use of preemptive force in a conflict is neither a good solution nor in the best interests of a state due to the long-term costs. A better resolution is to hold a reputation for predictability, deter the urge to attack, and endure the risk that the other state may preempt. Countries should abstain from using preemptive force and unjustified violence not only because it is virtuous, but because it is in their best interest in the long run. The Consequences of Preemption
|
Preemptive
Strike Out
Some security specialists criticized the continued commitment to preemption. "Preemption is and always will be a potentially useful tool, but it's not something you want to trot out and throw in everybody's face," said Harlan Ullman, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "To have a strategy on preemption and make it central is a huge error." |
|
|
Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|
|
 "As the occupation falls to pieces and Iraq
dissolves into the chaos of civil war, the War
Party's excuse is: "Noam Chomsky made us do it!" You
can't get more pathetic than that. Whatever.
It doesn't matter what rationalization the
laptop bombardiers conjure to make themselves
feel better – what matters is that the War Party is
in
full retreat, stumbling and
tripping over
itself as its headlong flight turns into a
rout." |
Some useful links: Writing Resources
Academic Freedom,
Activism Resource,
A Free Press,
Activism Archives,
Activism Calendar,
Activism
Links,
ACLU,
AFT,
AFT Archives,
Bush Pictures,
Capital Punishment,
C
Economic Reality,
Election Fraud,
Click the notepad at the right for direct support or click below
to visit our store and
Support our Public Benefit Nonprofit.