Preemption: Making America More Secure?

Abstract

Abstract : One of the more controversial aspects of the G.W. Bush administration's National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 is explicit in Section V on page 15 in support of Preemptive War when it states United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. . . .To forestall or prevent such hostile acts (attacks against our military forces or civilian population) by our adversaries the United States will if necessary act preemptively. The NSS does point out that one of the key components of preemption legal scholars typically use to validate such action is the presence of imminent danger of attack. The NSS also clearly points out the difficulty in this area with regards to terrorist type threats. The risk of waiting for clearly hostile acts in this era of weapons of mass destruction could be catastrophic. It is therefore arguably necessary that preemption be an acceptable option in US policy. In fact last year there were no less than five strategy research papers produced at the U.S. Army War College espousing the need and validity for preemptive war. The Bush administration employed the doctrine of preemptive war in the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom with decidedly mixed results. Although the initial combat phase of the war has been successful and Saddam Hussein This effort has received criticism from the world community including many of our allies as well as a significant number of Americans. While it is too early to assess the long-term impact of this preemptive war it can be argued that this particular effort has received far more criticism than other similar efforts in the past. As mentioned previously there appear to be valid reasons to retain the option for preemptive war as a policy option. The question is whether publishing this strategy and invoking it in situations like Iraq enhance United States Security.