In anti-war diatribes I keep hearing that this is a pre-emptive war. I can only suppose they would prefer a post-emptive war.
However, my question is, how can they call this war pre-emptive? We are citing specific violations of UN resolutions that result from violations of the CEASE FIRE of the Gulf War in 1991.
There was a war.
There was a cease fire.
The UN attempted to enforce the rules of the cease-fire.
Iraq violated the rules of the cease-fire.
Cease-fire is null and void.
I understand how the anti-war crowd would like to cast this war in the worst light possible, but is calling it “pre-emptive” honest?
To answer your main question first: It isn’t preemptive. But for different reasons than you think. It isn’t preemptive because that would demand an imminent danger being preempted. There’s nothing wrong with a preemptive war.
What’s wrong, though, is your argumentation. It fails to fly because the premises of war under UN guidance are different than the premise you have to use. The UN authorizes the use of military means to counter specific threats to world peace. In the case of '91, that was the invasion of Kuwait. With the liberation of Kuwait, the authorization was null and void beyond the conclusion of ongoing operations. The ceasefire was not imposed by the US, but rather by the UN, and imposed on ALL parties. As such, a)only the UN can conclude a breach, not the US, and b)the US is in violation of the ceasefire itself -though given that the ceasefire imposed conditions on all parties, including support for the inspections, the US has been in violation of the ceasefire for quite a while.
As such, if anyone, the Iraq was not the one to void the ceasefire, but the undermining of the inspection process by intelligence voided it. However, as described, that is meaningless, since the authorization for the use of military force doesn’t apply anymore.
Adding on to what Oliver said, a pre-emptive war is one in which a country starts a war to eliminate an imminent threat.
Nobody has really argued that Iraq is an imminent threat. Bush has repeatedly called Iraq a “grave and growing threat,” and the congressional use of force resolution says that Iraq is a “continuing threat,” whatever that is.
This appears to be more like a preventative war. A preventative war is one in which one country believes that, over time, another country will grow more powerful or dangerous. The first country then launches a war based on the expectation that they are more likely to be victorious at a lesser cost than would be the case at some point in the future.
The term pre-emptive seems to stick to this war because the 2002 National Security Strategy released by the White House argued that the US should take action, in some cases, to pre-empt threats before they reach our shores. Few care to distinguish between preemptive and preventative war (although the difference is important), so preemptive seems to have become the fashionable term.
I never knew you had to file a declaration of war and argue its merits to the UN before any military action is taken. It is in the UN charter to prevent a war between UN signitories and the Bush administration might argue that Resolution 1441 has language content that allows the use of military action (the french would argue the trigger to that language was not in the US or Britains jurisdiction) but all this UN hubub is immaterial.
The OP asks why this is called preemptive war. there is no postemptive…in fact, there isnt even an emptive. One of those strange english words with no root meaning. It is preemptive because the US initiated the attack (or military action) based on the threat and potential for harm and not as a response to any actual attack. There are grievances, certainly but nothing that would normally necessitate war. This was done to prevent future harm instead of limiting actual harm.
You don’t have to if you are defending yourself. However, the UN charter establishes the obligation of its member nations to resolve their differences by peaceful means, precluding any attack on another country without any authorization by the Security Council.
Not really. The US has established that resolutions and charter articles mean not what they say, but rather what a single country claims they say. By that course of action, the US has removed all justification for their own attack, since by that argument, the Iraq is in full compliance with all resolutions simply on the basis of their say-so. The argument that 1441 would authorize war is in that aspect quite funny. What it means is that the US claims that the majority of the Security Council authorized something which was their explicit intent not to authorize.
The phrase that has been used by Bush people is “pre-emptive self-defense.” Since only wars in self-defense are legal (with one exception under Chapter VII of the UN Charter), they’ve tried to claim that this war is in self-defense. The argument doesn’t make much sense. Now, those who try to claim this war is legal focus on the idea that Resolution 1441 already authorized an attack on Iraq. It’s probably a stronger argument, in that it exists in the realm of logical thought, but still easily shot down.
Your cease-fire argument doesn’t work either. Here’s how I explained it in an earlier thread on the same topic
Drawing an analogy between the ceasefire and contract law might make sense if the ceasefire was a treaty. Even still, states are not allowed to use force to respond to breaches of treaties. The terms of the ceasefire were contained in SC Resolution 687. The only action that justified the attack on Iraq was the occupation of Kuwait, and once that situation changed, any continued use of force against Iraq became illegal. Also, the Resolution authorizes the SC to “take such further steps as may be required for the implementation” of the resolution. It certainly does not (nor could it) delegate the authority to the United States to determine when there has been a material breach of the terms and to unilaterally use force to enforce the resolution.
While I generally concur with both OliverH and Chula, I must point out that UNSC 687 did not impose ceasefire conditions other than observance of the ceasefire. It included obligations on the part of Iraq, but those obligations were not conditions to the ceasefire.
So the OP breaks down on these three lines. The UN never attempted to enforce “the rules” of the ceasefire, but it did attempt to enforce ongoing obligations imposed on Iraq.
Iraq did not violate “the rules” (conditions) of the ceasefire.
The ceasefire is not null and void (well, actually, it became null and void when the coalition invasion started).
Haven’t we already put this one to rest (a few times)?