Issue #37
February 28, 2005
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
International On Preemptive Strikes by Gerry Krownstein The Bush administration, in a radical change from previous US policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations, has announced the intention to attack any nation which the administration fears is preparing an attack on us or on our allies. The current target of this policy is Iraq, but the President has made it clear that preemptive strikes may be made against any nation at any time.
Three questions require answers:
•Is this policy legal?
•Is this policy wise?
•Is this policy necessary?
Is this policy legal? Opponents of the policy point to the Constitution's clause reserving to the Senate the power to declare war. The Constitution also assigns to treaties the power of law; the United Nations Charter, to which the US is a signatory, reserves armed action to defense against aggression, unless authorized by the Security Council. As a rule, in international law, absent massing of enemy troops on a nation's border, a first strike is usually interpreted as aggression.
Proponents of the policy point to the Constitution's clause naming the President as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. This has often been interpreted (particularly by Presidents), as permitting the President to order the use of armed force if he sees a clear and present danger to the country. It is also argued that the UN has already authorized the use of force against Iraq, at least, prior to the Gulf War. Since Saddam Hussein has not complied with the agreements he signed ending the war, the UN authorization remains in effect. Two additional arguments are made for attacking other states: one is that the "war on terrorism" has been authorized by Congress, and that, having been attacked, we are free to respond under that authorization; the other is that technology has changed the rules, so that telling blows can be struck against the US without prior warning or massing of troops by an enemy. In this view, waiting until an overt act takes place is suicidal.
Is this policy wise? Opponents point out that wars are unpredictable and have unintended consequences; they also point to what appears to be a complete lack of concern on the part of the Bush administration to the aftermath of the war in Iraq or any of the other (unnamed) countries it might wish to attack. Promises made not to walk away from Afghanistan have already been reneged upon; it is unlikely that the Bush administration will spend more money or effort in the restructuring and reconstruction of any other country to bear the brunt of American military action. Opponents also contend that if the US strikes at any country that has not attacked us or anyone to whom we are bound by treaty, there will no longer be any rationale by which we can criticize or oppose another country s similar action. International law, already feeble in controlling aggression, will now be entirely crippled by the precedent set by us.
Proponents of the preemptive strike policy contend that the policy is not aggressive, but defensive. They point to the 1930s as an example, saying that if Hitler had been stopped when Germany was weak, at the point when it was contravening the demilitarization clauses of the WWI peace treaty by rearming, the Nazi atrocities and the death and destruction of WWII could have been averted. Proponents also claim a deterrent effect such a policy will have on states tempted to harm us; this policy will counteract the perception of weakness that our patience and measured responses in the past has supposedly generated.
Is it necessary? Opponents ask what the sudden emergency is that has the President beating the drums of war at this point in time. Hasn't the current situation persisted for almost 10 years, since the first Bush administration, confused about what to do with Iraq in the aftermath of the Gulf War, refused to destroy the Ba'ath regime by knocking out the Republican Guard in Basra and pressing on to Baghdad? They smell a domestic political motivation, rather than a true national need. In addition, since the preemptive strike policy was enunciated to go beyond Iraq, opponents ask what, in the rest of the world, requires giving the President a blank check for military action?
Proponents say that time is growing short in Iraq; it is only a matter of months before Saddam Hussein has (depending on which administration spokesman is defending the policy at the time) nuclear, biological or chemical weapons able to threaten the US. Since we are going to have to go to war anyway when that situation occurs, why not do it now when we are not subject to nuclear/chemical/biological blackmail? Why not do it before Saddam Hussein links up in a definitive way with Al Qaeda and distributes these weapons to terrorists? If we wait, the argument goes, it may be too late and hundreds, thousands or millions of lives may be lost.
Has the case been made? Despite an almost unprecedented propaganda campaign to generate support for the Bush policies, the public remains unconvinced, and rightly so. A generalized policy of preemptive strikes has not found favor, since Bush's spokespeople have not been able to marshal any arguments of sufficient weight and detail to impress most Americans. Even the far more restrictive and easier-to-make case for invading Iraq has generated mixed responses: the CIA has questioned the Bush team's assessment of the immanence of Iraq's posing a nuclear or biological threat to the US; the defense establishment (including past Secretaries of Defense and members of the Joint Chiefs) have cautioned against an Iraq adventure, not because of its military difficulty so much as out of fear of the aftermath of a US victory in Iraq; and the general public remains unenthusiastic, preferring to complete the destruction of Al Qaeda and worried about the economy.
The policy of preemptive strikes will turn us into the nuclear-armed outlaw state that we abhor elsewhere in the world. It is in the best interests of our country (and the rest of the world) that our citizens ensure that this doesn't happen.
New York Stringer is published by NYStringer.com. For all communications, contact David Katz, Editor and Publisher, at david@nystringer.com
All content copyright 2005 by nystringer.com
Click on underlined bylines for the author’s home page.