In another thread over in GQ we are talking about what it takes to ‘justifiably’ start a war. Js_africanus provided a link to Jumping the Gun by Michael Byers where he looks into the legality of armed conflicts (please don’t nitpick on whether ‘legal’ as applied to war has any real meaning). In the article he wrote the following:
I can certainly see the importance of keeping preemptive strikes off the table as an excuse for attacking another country. It would be all too simple for one country to claim an imminent danger so they just ‘had’ to attack first.
Nevertheless this is a different world today. It is one thing to not allow that excuse when it took weeks to mobilize an army and weeks or years to go through with an attack. Unfortunately today nuclear, biologic and chemical (NBC) weapons change the equation. You can now have one single person (or a very few people) cause stupendous amounts of damage. Rather than having one army aimed at another you have a few people aimed at a civilian population and capable of casuing tens of thousands (perhaps millions of deaths) in the blink of an eye.
I’m not sure how allowing preemptive strikes would work but I imagine nations could comeup with some framework where such a thing might be considered. I guess the debate here is if my worries are sufficient, in your minds, to even see if preemptive strikes are justifiable in some cases (assuming you aren’t already at war) or if they should always be kept off the table regardless of circumstances?
First of all, few of these examples are really pre-emptive strikes: that would imply that an attack was imminent. What these would be (and what Bush wants) are preventative strikes: we attack you because we don’t want you to become powerful enough to attack us or anyone even if you have no present plans to do so.
I think it makes all the difference in the world. Preemptive would be maybe justifiable…preventative isn’t justifiable at all (at least not on the world stage).
Of course that’s the rub. Any would be aggressor is going to claim meek innocence right up till the time they attack (unless they are congenitally stupid). In many if not most cases I think it’d be difficult to prove intent till the actual deed was done.
In the case of Iraq I think you can see at least one exception. You have a proven aggressor (attacked Iran and Kuwait zero [or at least trumped-up] provocation). You have an aggressor who is proven to be willing to use weapons of mass destruction (on his own people no less). You have a country proven to have been (and may still be) seeking even more and varied WMDs. You have a leader who has stated his will to horribly damage his enemies (i.e. he wants to kill us and publically says so).
We aren’t talking about suicide bombers in nightclubs here (as if that weren’t hideous enough). We’re talking about someone who it is reasonable to assume would inflict tens of thousands of casualties on the US (and maybe a few other countries besides) given half a chance.
It would seem to me the US should be able to make a case for going after Iraq preemptively (not preventatively).
Sorry to bring this down to Iraq as I am curious about the broader notion but Iraq is a convenient example just now so I’m using it.
We do exactly that here in this country all the time.
Think about our feelings about personal ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers and other middle sized WMD.
So, why should we worry about who has BIG WMD, nukes, germs, chemicals? Unless they actually use them, it is not anyone’s business?
The problem is not either or, IMO but the ‘not everybody’ part.
Every body should have a Nuke or no one should have a Nuke. That works either way. The problem comes when only some have Nukes. Then were get the problems.
Also, it is the SIZE of the weapons or the power of them. Four airliners turned out to be big enough. So how to stop it? Unfortunately, it can’t be stopped completely. So, what to do. well, IMO, it depends on if you are one of the ones who has strength to do something. No matter the right or wrong of it, if you can’t do anything or won’t do anything, it will happen again and again until the strong destroy the weak. The weak need a strong surrogate. Who shall it be? Iraq, or the US?
The world is not where ready for peace or even tolerance IMO. That is sad but we don’t even to need to look outside our own communities to see that. Why is it expected from Nations when we as individuals do not practice it?
Either we strike first oput of fear or we wait and destroy totally if we are attacked. Everything in between is half measures and we have the capacity for half measures only. It is going to be long and bloody before people are either tollerant or subdued. We will not all be good at anyone time for any measure of time because we won’t make the changes at the level that is all has to start at. With ourselves.