It’s pretty clear that the document The National Security Strategy of the United States of America attempts to re-define the term “imminent threat”:
V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction
For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.
We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world’s most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. We will always proceed deliberately, weighing the consequences of our actions. To support preemptive options, we will:
build better, more integrated intelligence capabilities to provide timely, accurate information on threats, wherever they may emerge;
coordinate closely with allies to form a common assessment of the most dangerous threats; and
continue to transform our military forces to ensure our ability to conduct rapid and precise operations to achieve decisive results.
The purpose of our actions will always be to eliminate a specific threat to the United States or our allies and friends. The reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the cause just.
The doctrine calls for pre-emptive strikes to counter the threat of WMDs.
No WMDs = no threat = no pre-emption.
Squink
December 27, 2003, 5:12am
102
And yet Walloon we are confronted with the reality of the president bringing up Aluminum tubes and enriched uranium and atom bombs and UAV’s equipped with bioweapons; anthrax, smallpox and the like, poison gases, etc. etc. etc., stories of connections between Saddam and the mad attack of 9/11, and repeated claims that “the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given.” If the president wasn’t attempting to make it sound as if Iraq posed an imminent threat, just what the hell was he up to?
Walloon ’s quote isn’t that hard to understand, after you’ve read the Security Strategy document. I’ll reproduce the quote here:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
Bush is clearly using the term “imminent threat” in the old sense, that is, of the troops-massing-at-the-border kind. He’s also saying that the U.S. has to act anyway , because the threat doesn’t fall under the old definition.
Ari Fleischer, on the other hand, didn’t bother with such semantic quibbles:
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
Q Well, we went to war, didn’t we, to find these – because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn’t that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He’s had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion.
Walloon
December 27, 2003, 6:17am
104
Note that Ari Fleischer’s May 7 press conference was after the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad, not before.
Squink , provide exact quotations from President Bush, in context, with dates, and we’ll talk.
Squink
December 27, 2003, 6:38am
105
Answer my question . If the president wasn’t attempting to make it sound as if Iraq posed an imminent threat, just what the hell was he up to?
You’ve got a gaping HUGE hole in your reasoning here.
Huh? So what?
Maybe you think some conclusion follows from this, that’s so obvious you don’t need to say what it is. I just ain’t seein’ it, though.
Walloon
December 27, 2003, 6:48am
107
Still waiting for those quotes by President Bush, Squink .
Until then, in answer to your question, I refer you again to his State of the Union address: “If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.”
I can see that you’re typing in English, Walloon , I can read the individual words and sentences.
But I still can’t work out what the point you’re trying to make is, so you may as well be writing in Swahili.
WTF are you talking about?
A quick summary of your position might be in order.
Walloon
December 27, 2003, 7:02am
109
“WTF” is out of order. This isn’t the pit.
Squink
December 27, 2003, 7:18am
110
Fairy tales Desmo . I think Walloon looks on all those scary claims the president made as something akin to metaphorical stories used to drive home a moral point. They were never meant to be taken as strictly reality based. Of course, the president could have made that meaning plain to everyone if he’d brought up Saddam’s ongoing plan to raise an army of Orcs and sieze control of the ring of power. That would have at least made for a much more interesting debate about the State of the Union.
Good god. You think “WTF” is some kind of flame, so you’re relieved of any obligation to explain yourself? :rolleyes: