Does an Ounce of Prevention Really Bring a Pound of Cure? The Debate over Preventive War Doctrine

Abstract

Abstract : The terrorist attacks perpetrated against the United States of America on September 11, 2001 were pivotal in shaping the George W. Bush administration's new National Security Strategy (NSS). The release of the NSS in September 2002 unleashed a firestorm of debate over the shift from deterrence and containment to advocacy of preventive war, as presaged in the sentence And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. The February 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism echoes the NSS, emphatically stating We cannot wait for terrorists to attack and then respond. &Preventing terrorist groups from gaining access to technology, particularly that which supports WMD, will be one of our highest priorities. &And finally, when states prove reluctant or unwilling to meet their international obligations to deny support and sanctuary to terrorists, the United States, in cooperation with friends and allies, or if necessary, acting independently, will take appropriate steps to convince them to change their policies. The ongoing war in Iraq, fought on the grounds of necessary prevention, brought the debate to a fever pitch. Among the main points argued were whether preventive war was an appropriate use of force, and what were the likely repercussions of such an action. In examining the many sides of the argument, the reluctant conclusion is that preventive war is necessary under extraordinary conditions.