Preemptive war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
In political rhetoric "preëmptive war" may also be used to refer to preventive war
A preëmptive attack (or preëmptive war) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat an imminent offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (usually unavoidable) war. Preëmptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preëmptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable.
The intention with a preëmptive strike is to gain the advantage of initiative and to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization.
While the labeling of an attack (on strategic and tactical levels) seldom is controversial, it is much more so in regard to the initiation of a war. For propagandist reasons, and in the name of information warfare, an adversary's defensive dispositions may often be attributed offensive purpose alleging the necessity of the own attack.
One hypothetical example of a preemptive war would be an attack staged against enemy troops, massed at a state's border, that were preparing to invade.
The Soviet Union's aerial attack on Finland on June 25, 1941, as an answer to the German attack on Russia of June 22 (Operation Barbarossa leading to the Great Patriotic War), can be argued to be an example of such a preemptive attack, although failed, and though the bombing of residential districts has to be attributed a psychological aim rather than a tactical. Finland's army was mobilized and prepared for both defense and offense, its government had declared its intention to remain outside of the war, and its parliament was assembled to confirm the status of nonbelligerence when attacked. The following Continuation War led to a three year long Finnish occupation of Russian Karelia.
Some commentators have pointed out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be regarded as a preemptive attack.
It is the policy of the United States that "preemptive war" or even preventive war may be waged in appropriate circumstances as part of the Bush Doctrine.
There is some question as to the legality of this doctrine under international law. Article 2 Section 4 of the UN Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens, or a peremptory norm which cannot be violated. It bars the threat or use of force against any state. At the same time, however, Article 51 clearly permits self defense. The tension between these two principals is evident in the doctrine of preemptive war, which claims to be defensive, yet does not come in response to an attack.
[edit] Preëmptive strike
A preëmptive strike is a military attack designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated attack from an enemy.
It can also be used to describe any offensive (as opposed to defensive) action that is taken to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated offensive action by another party. These actions can be either physical or non-physical.
The legality of pre-emptive strikes became a particular issue after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the USA. Senator John Kerry has called for a "global test" to decide when pre-emptive strikes are acceptable.
Substantial opposition against pre-emptive strikes comes from pacifists, countries that have previously been invaded and/or occupied (former colonies including much of the Middle East, the countries that lost the Second World War) and countries caught in the cross-fire of the Cold War, many of whom see US-assertion of a 'pre-emptive strike' not as a defensive measure, but an offensive one.
Considering preemption sweeps most diplomatic options off the table. Unverifiable intelligence tends to loom large in threat assessments used to justify a first strike. The possibility that bogus intelligence will be introduced into the information stream by supporters of the first strike also creates a problem. The rush to war necessitated by supposed immanent attack can be followed by subsequent disclosure and validation that the pretexts were false, or falsified.
[edit] External links
- Washington Times
- Excerpt from the book "Deadly Doctrine" about preemption. Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy
- ThoughtCast speaks with Alan Dershowitz about his book "Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways"...
