In a recent thread, Plan B asserted that “sometimes the preemptive attacks are the best way to go.” This question is for Plan B or anybody else who wishes to defend the Bush doctrine, or some other philosophy that supports preemptive warfare. Now I’m only aware of two instances of preemptive attacks being used as a justification for a shooting war.
In WWII, Hitler claimed that almost every time Germany invaded another country, it was necessary to defeat a massive conspiracy which intended to encircle and destroy Germany.
For the second war in Iraq, George W Bush claimed the invasion was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein was giving weapons of mass destruction to Al Queda.
Neither of these instances does much to build up my confidence in the doctrine of preemptive war. Firstly, in boths cases the justification for preemptive action was based on falsehoods. Secondly, in both cases it was intended to provide cover for a different motive. Thirdly, in both cases the nation doing the preempting ended up losing the war.
But perhaps I’m rushing to judgement without first receiving the full facts. So, Plan B (or anyone else), please inform me of the instances in which a preemptive attack successfully headed off a real threat.