The flaw in the concept of pre-emptive war:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Pre-emptive warfare as a concept is logically unworkable and morally is more than somewhat flawed. Morally, the concept of pre-emptive war cannot work. A war that prevents something by virtue of preventing something brings the horrors of war against an enemy that does not exist. To claim that the evils of Ba'ath Iraq made that justified leaves the obvious question of "So why the Hell is nobody doing something about North Korea" busy gallivanting around. Any claim, too, that the evils in themselves justify another war with them also overlooks the entirety of US policies there in the 1990s, to the point that in at least one case that massacres came about from the USA encouraging an uprising and then in typical fashion betraying it and crying crocodile tears over what the Beast of Baghdad did even when we encouraged his victims to do what they did.

The other side of it is that a pre-emptive war will attack an enemy to prevent it from becoming a threat. Meaning the enemy attacked is in fact not a threat, and thus just an easy, cheap (at least in theory), conquest. Hence one can go to war deliberately understrength and under-equipped and it not matter as the war will be a rapid victory that pays for itself against a foe that's not truly threatening. The problem, however, is that the foe is in fact not truly threatening. There can be no means, either, for anyone who approves of the invasion to seriously claim Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone except his political opponents in Iraq proper. One could make the argument that the powers objecting to the invasion were really objecting to losing pricey contracts with the Hussein regime and nothing else, but even then, that leaves the biggest, most glaring long-term flaw as a result of GWB's actions:

If any other Power, or any other state decides now that it can do this same exact thing, invading and occupying a part of the world and claiming it's a pre-emptive war, US moral and political credibility against wars of aggressions has been shattered. The USA cannot simply invade Iraq and tell say, Russia, that its own invasions are evil, Russia has even less reason to listen than it otherwise would. The invasion and justification by pre-emptive war thus all but guarantees the world will be more violent and more unstable than it already is. And this is further enhanced by Bush's successors refusing to renounce this rather key flaw in what Bush has left the USA.If any other Power, or any other state decides now that it can do this same exact thing, invading and occupying a part of the world and claiming it's a pre-emptive war, US moral and political credibility against wars of aggressions has been shattered. The USA cannot simply invade Iraq and tell say, Russia, that its own invasions are evil, Russia has even less reason to listen than it otherwise would. The invasion and justification by pre-emptive war thus all but guarantees the world will be more violent and more unstable than it already is. And this is further enhanced by Bush's successors refusing to renounce this rather key flaw in what Bush has left the USA.  Unfortunately I think pre-emptive war may rank for the United States as a geopolitical disaster greater than anything it has yet come up with. Your thoughts?

Comments

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

To claim that the evils of Ba'ath Iraq made that justified leaves the obvious question of "So why the Hell is nobody doing something about North Korea" busy gallivanting around.

Irrelevant. What you're questioning is whether it was necessary, not whether it was justified. If the war against Iraq was necessary for moral reasons, then it's likely that you're right, we should be at war with half the world. If, however, it was merely justified - that is, the decision to make war against Iraq was morally OK, but not morally required - then your argument is irrelevant.

Any claim, too, that the evils in themselves justify another war with them also overlooks the entirety of US policies there in the 1990s, to the point that in at least one case that massacres came about from the USA encouraging an uprising and then in typical fashion betraying it and crying crocodile tears over what the Beast of Baghdad did even when we encouraged his victims to do what they did.

Again, irrelevant. If we did wrong in the past by failing to support anti-Saddam moves, is that not just *more* reason to overthrow him, to help undo one of the wrongs (Saddam's continued power)?

Meaning the enemy attacked is in fact not a threat, and thus just an easy, cheap (at least in theory), conquest.

This depends on how inevitable their development into a threat is. North Korea will likely have a delivery system that can get a nuke to the US in the next, oh, ten or fifteen years. Saddam's WMD program was a helluva lot more speculative. And anyway, you're still arguing against the preemptive war in Iraq, not preemptive war in general.

US moral and political credibility against wars of aggressions has been shattered.

Holy cow, an argument that holds water.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) Actually what should be questioned is both. Saddam was far from the worst dictator of 2003, Kim Jong Il even then was much worse. So why Iraq, why not North Korea? Why only the evil dictators in oil-rich countries? It's not the evil dictator factor, in other words, it's annother thing.

2) Not given what we were doing in 1980-8 and certainly not given that there were other, far more pressing cases where intervention might well have been warranted.

3) I am using Iraq as a specific example to illustrate the fallacy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Point.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Easy, GWOT. Kim Jong Il isn't a Muslimterrorist.

FTFY

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Well that and N. Korea would be a big effing war, and also china.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

1) Actually what should be questioned is both. Saddam was far from the worst dictator of 2003, Kim Jong Il even then was much worse. So why Iraq, why not North Korea? Why only the evil dictators in oil-rich countries? It's not the evil dictator factor, in other words, it's annother thing.

This functions solely as a critique of the Iraq war, and not even its capacity as a preemptive war, though. You're asking why we didn't attack other countries that were just as bad, or worse. That's totally irrelevant to the question of whether we were morally justified in attacking Iraq, which would ignore the actions of unrelated third parties and focus on our moral capacity and the culpability of Iraq. If two houses are burning down, it's not wrong or hypocritical to choose one at which to point your hose. The condition of the other house has no bearing on the morality of your current actions to stop this one from burning down.

2) Not given what we were doing in 1980-8 and certainly not given that there were other, far more pressing cases where intervention might well have been warranted.

Re: other cases, see above. Re: "What we were doing," this is just you restating your prior argument. Again, if we fucked up before and did something wrong (which you appear to argue), shouldn't we now be helping to stop Saddam?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) That we did not attack those other countries means that our arguments for invading Iraq were no more than a pretext. The problem is those arguments were phrased universally, as opposed to suiting the situation on the ground.

2) Not really, as we gave him the weapons he used to do his war crimes with....it's like waving meat in front of a hyena and then being surprised when it turns and tries to eat you.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Longer, if we count the East-Roman Empire, though most people do not. Which is certainly one of the great ironies of the Roman Empire example. The USSR as an example's equally ironic as post-Soviet Russia is still the largest, wealthiest, post-Soviet state.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's a fair point, on the other hand the part of the Empire that survived had always been the wealthiest, most learned, most literate part of it.....

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Isn't Romania really just a bastardization of the word Romae (of the Rome)

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"Power always thinks it has a great soul".
-John Adams

The basic flaw...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I simply love the way that vicious Americans justify aggression with the notion that they are preventing aggression. It is the spice of life.

Let us not forget one of the most famous acts of preemption: the Japanese preemption of alien aggression in their sphere of influence on the 12/7/41 (7/12/41 Euro-style).

Re: The basic flaw...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Eh, if Pearl Harbor counts as that, we could also count the Winter War as the prime example of how not to do one.

Re: The basic flaw...

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Oh, no. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a SNEAK ATTACK. A PREEMPTIVE STRIKE against Iran would be totally different... because it uses different words!

Re: The basic flaw...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was a surprise attack, but it was done for preemptive purposes.

Re: The basic flaw...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Ah, no. It was done for the strategic purpose to remove the Pacific Fleet as a counterweight to the bigger offensive that began the same day. That's not pre-emption, that's a strategic offensive. Too, they were intending a Declaration of War but their cryptographical problems up and bit them in the ass. It's not at all like 2003.

What is more like 2003 was the Soviet attack on Finland that tends to be neglected more than it should be by most histories of the war, which is a classic example of why a pre-emptive war is an idiot damn fool stupid idea.

Re: The basic flaw...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

There really is a difference between pre-emptive attack and the opening salvo of an ocean-wide offensive. Pearl Harbor was just one part of the largest amphibious offensive in history, and it's the one that gets the most focus because it's the most spectacular right off-hand. In any event Japan had tried to rig it so the declaration of war and their attack would happen simultaneously, the limitations of 1940s Japanese cryptography made that impossible and led to another surprise attack, just as at Port Arthur they'd wanted the declaration *and* the attack and communications-lags forestalled that.

The better WWII analogy is the Soviet attack on Finland in 1939 to pre-empt a threat to Leningrad. Ironically in wanting to *have* a declaration this still put the Japanese one level ahead of the Nazis in political savvy.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I don't always agree with you, Under L, but I agree with this. :)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Obviously pre-emptive wars are not really pre-emptive wars, they are just wars with a certain kind of justification. You're just buying into the doublespeak to even address it as such.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

The original reason for invading Iraq was supposedly WMDs which Saddam could hand off to Al Qaeda(which we had given him, btw). After we found only some drums of bug spray, that's when the rationale shifted more and more and became murky as Hell in November.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

go back and read bush's UN speech in september 2004.