The left blogosphere is full of flak today about Doug Feith's interview on 60 minutes last night, in which he claims that the Iraq war was right because President Hussein was a threat, even though he admits the claim of WMD was exaggerated. No one seems to be buying it, heck Jason Sigger won't even buy his new book though he says he'll read it.
Let's focus for a moment on the most significant part of Feith's argument, which is not that the war was right, but that it was legal under the doctrine of "pre-emption." This is a departure from earlier justifications of the war, which either claimed the war was preemptive by manufacturing a fake threat, or admitted it was preventive and tried to justify it anyway. What Feith has done though, is to reinterpret preventive war as preemptive war.
Since Cleitus asked awhile ago, let me begin by clarifying the just war distinction between preventive and preemptive war. Preventive war consists of basic real-politik, that is identifying enemies who may threaten you at some time in the future and knocking them out while they're still weak. This was standard and accepted practice among states until the establishment of the UN Charter regime. (It was also, arguably, the logic that led to World War I, hence 20th century efforts to reconstitute the norms governing the use of force.)
Pre-emptive war, by constrast, involves a situation where the state in question is already poised for the attack. Contra political realism, which argues you should never allow your enemy to pick the time of the battle, just war theory argues that force is only justified when that moment is upon you - in this case, pre-emptive war becomes akin to self-defense.
The UN Charter outlaws preventive war (Article 2.4) but permits self-defense (Article 51). Supporters of the Iraq war have used two strategies to justify it. Originally, it was said to be preemptive because of the imminent threat of WMD, and the 2002 National Security Strategy refers to
"preemptive actions to counter a significant threat to our security."When that fell through, some argued that the US has a right to engage in preventive war. In effect, the National Security Strategy of 2006 makes this case, arguing
"it is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."But this is the first time I've seen a public official so brazenly confuse preemption with prevention. His justification for the war is clearly prevention, and he doesn't fudge it at all:
"In an era where WMD can put countries a position to do an enormous amount of harm, the old idea of having to wait until you actually see the country mobilizing for war doesn't make a lot of sense."OK, fair enough. He could reasonably say, preventive war is morally OK in this brave new world. But instead he insists this actually is preemption, or as he calls it "anticipatory self-defense."
Just like "coercive interrogation" isn't torture. It is wrong to dismiss Feith as an idiot. This latest wilful and brazen reinterpretation of international law is only one more datapoint in a larger pattern since 9/11.
No wonder the average American is confused about the laws of war.
Posts
3 comments:
Diodotus raises good points, as always, and, one might add, on a rather more frequent basis than yours truly.
But let's discuss the idea behind "pre-emptive" and "preventive" war...
My learned friend states that Pre-emptive war... involves a situation where the state in question is already poised for the attack.
Exactly what sort of attack was Iraq poised to make? One really is obliged to wonder, seeing as how, even if they had WMD, they lacked any delivery system that could threaten the US mainland... Even when the US began building up forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, targets which the Iraqis could have launched their own "pre-emptive" strike against, the Iraqi military were not poised to do anything more than defend themselves. (The regime's laudable attempt to place a premium on civilian lives and prepare to fight a conventional defensive ground war in open country rather than turn Basra, Baghdad, and other population centres into modern Stalingrads was foolish, and perhaps a worthy topic for discussion at a later date.)
Diodotus further states that in some cases pre-emptive war becomes akin to self-defense - a statement that clearly is better applied to the Iraqis than the Americans.
Yes, with the world's sole superpower massing the greatest air and land assault force seen in over a decade within miles of your borders, a state might rationally choose to launch a pre-emptive strike to destroy nascent airfields, logistics depots, and other facilities required for a successful invasion.
But again, to categorize the US action as pre-emptive in any sense is ludicrous.
The American force was the aggressor, the invader, the attacker. They chose the time, date and place of the attack; and far, far in advance of the "softening" air campaign and the final ground assault.
Just as the beachhead at Normandy was planned in detail months in advance, so was the attack into sovereign Iraqi territory.
To suppose that this was a quickly-launched, pre-emptive strike such as can be accomplished with a few hundred Marines and their supporting aircraft, or a battalion of Army Rangers, a SEAL team, or other Special Operations forces is merely a flight of fancy.
Pre-emptive? Clearly not... Preventive? Perhaps. Blatant aggression by a superpower against an ideologically annoying, but nonetheless sovereign state? Indubitably.
This is my whole point, of course. It was definitely not a pre-emptive war. What Feith is doing is claiming preemption by using the language of prevention - in effect, trying to completely redefine preemption. Bad news for world order.
This is my whole point, of course. It was definitely not a pre-emptive war. What Feith is doing is claiming preemption by using the language of prevention - in effect, trying to completely redefine preemption. Bad news for world order.
Post a Comment