Why is the upcoming war considered something new, or a preemptive attack?

Great Debates
1

Not sure if this belongs in GQ or not…

I do not understand this. Why is this being called a preemptive attack at all. I thought that since Saddam had never fulfilled its part of the surrender that then the Gulf War had never really ended. The last ten years have then in effect been a lull between battles.

So how is this something new and not just a direct continuation of the old war? And if it is a direct continuation, why do we need any new justificaiton (terrorism et al.) or sanction from the UN for it?

2

Agreed. The Gulf War was ended by a cease fire between the UN and Iraq. A cease-fire is a contract - the UN agreed to stop attacking Iraq so long as Iraq did X, Y, and Z. Iraq has not done X, Y, and Z, so the contract is void.

Sua

3

The objective of the Gulf War was ostensibly to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. That objective was reached.

The idea that the next war is a continuation of the old one is just one of many lies told by the administration to justify its monstrous crimes.

4

Iraq has been in violation of the cease fire agreement since virtually the day after it was signed. If this is a lie “told by the administration to justify its monstrous crimes,” it was set up over ten years ago:

1991
1991
1992
1992
1996

These are only the first five hits of “about 412” from a google search of “cease fire agreement iraq” on fas.org.

5

The last date you cite is 1996, six years ago.

At any rate, it is beyond absurd to claim that violations like this constitute a continuation of the first Gulf War.
Oh, never mind. I can’t believe this conversation is even occuring.

Carry on.

6

Well, at least you can subtract. :rolleyes:

I hope you will notice that the noone in the current administration was in the administration in 1996, unlike 1991 & 1992. Iraq has been in breach of the terms of the cease fire agreement since shortly after signing it. We are finally getting around to giving Saddam the ultimatum to get his shit together or else.

Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Please, enlighten us with your wisdom. Why is it so unbelievable that we should hold someone to their word?

7

Someone help me out here: Didn’t the UN authorize force to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? And then pass resolutions for sanctions etc? If true, then one war ended and another, based on unheeded resolutions, is about to begin, yes?

8

Whether or not this is a “continuation” of the previous war, or a completely new one, is immaterial. Iraq violated the sanctions, so Iraq is to be punished. I don’t see the problem here, really.

9

Yes, I do not understand why everyone, especially the administration, is saying that this is part of a new policy of preemptive attacks.

What is preemptive about this?

10

You people have not been paying attention to your government’s propaganda. A quick look at the dictionary shows “preemptive” means “taking the initiative” and just reading the news shows the justification is not any continuation of the Gulf war but to attack Iraq before they get a chance to attack others. That is been repeated every day ad nauseam.

11

Whether or not this present situation is truly preemptive or not perhaps is not so important to the administration. Maybe what’s important to them is that they set a precedent for pre-emptive strikes in the future.

12

I would still like to know why this is being called a preemptiv attack.

13

I agree. If this little war goes off well, then when the next war against [insert Big New Threat here] will be easier to justify.

Historically speaking, getting a republic to initiate war tends to takes a good amount of deception and manipulation. This precedent, of course, makes it easier.

14

Just a WAG here, but maybe its being called a preemptive attack because one of the main arguments used to justify war is the supposed desirability of allaying the nation’s fears that Saddam may someday actually pose a real threat to America ?

15

The UN Charter makes the use of force illegal except under certain circumstances. Chapter VII defines the actions that can legally be taken to respond to breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. Except for self-defence (Article 51), all of these exceptions require Security Council authorizations.

The Security Council declared the invasion of Kuwait a breach of the peace and of international security in 1990, and it 1991 it authorized states cooperating with Kuwait to “use all necessary means” to enforce earlier resolutions. There is some question as to whether this action violated the Charter because Chapter VII does not seem to allow the SC to delegate the decision to use force to member states. In any case, invasion of another country is pretty clear grounds for self-defence. This operation can be justified under the theory of “collective self-defense,” which says that states may come to another state’s aid if invited.

“Preemptive attack” is generally called preventive or anticipatory self-defense in international law. I believe the phrase “preemtive action” was first used by Reagan to attempt to justify under Article 51 the 1986 bombing of Libya. The concept is not supported by international law and is extremely dangerous. If it had been employed during the Cold War, none of us would be having this discussion right now. The one time anticipatory self-defense was explicitly invoked was by Israel when it bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. The action was unanimously condemned by the SC.

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.

16

Once the preemptive precedent is set, Canada will take us out because we have nuclear weapons close to her border.

17

Sorry to bump this, but I still want to know why this is considered preemptive? People keep saying it is without a second thought, it is confusing.

18

“The Gulf War was ended by a cease fire between the UN and Iraq”
That’s precisely the point ; the other party was the UN not the US. So only the UN can decide what the appropriate punishment for ceasefire violations is; there is no reason to believe that war is the automatic punishment.

19

I think it is considered preemptive in that the Bush administration believes that Iraq will either use nuclear or chemical weapons against the USA, or give them to someone who will use them against the USA. We are beating up the school bully because we believe that he is planning to steal our lunch money rather than wating for him to swipe it and then clobber him.

20

I find this whole subject just another in a series of endless debates over terminology. As if the semantics employed by either side in the debate bear any relationship to the situation.

Let’s start with the OP: the upcoming war, IF it happens, is justified by Bush in his public statements as neither something new nor preemptive in a primary usage of the terms. Yes, UNSCR687, as the governing cease-fire agreement, does characterize the terms of said 1991 ceasefire. It is critical to mention that Saddam Hussein accepted the terms. I don’t give a fig if he secretly had his fingers crossed behind his back. I don’t care that it was under duress, at the point of a nuclear tipped ICBM, or whathaveyou. It matters not a whit. That’s what happens in war to the losing side. The onus is on him to prove his compliance. Not ours to prove a negative. The subsequent resolutions more that adequately illustrate Iraqi ongoing non-compliance. Check out the UNSCOM reports if you would like a little more late night reading. It’s very boring reading in a way. More polite words piled on top of lots of previously polite words meaning a grand total of diddly squat. In terms of the response from the UNSC. IMHO, of course. The central point, and where we find ourselves today, is that Iraq has been given yet one more chance to comply with a resolution 11 years and 8 months old, or face a resumption of hostilities. So, it is clear that this latest action is one more attempt, largely at the behest and prodding of the U.S., to force Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions which the U.N. itself has hitherto been incapable of enforcing.
Now, I will accept the terms new and preemptive in a secondary sense, that being that Bush is advocating a new series of steps intended to better assure Iraqi compliance with previous UNSC resolutions. Preemptive is applicable in justifying the haste and urgency in response to the perennial question from turtles everywhere: “Why now?” I am not going to spin my wheels to do what I’ve seen done over and over again in other threads on this subject, by much smarter posters than I, in crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ regarding Iraqi non-compliance with 11 years and 8 months of UNSC resolutions, and their pattern of delay, denial, deceit with regard to UNSCOM. Take a look at the public interviews from Richard Butler, Dr. David Kay, Dr. Richard Spertzel, Tim McCarthy, etc. Pay attention to C-SPAN and get an earful. It’s all out there, baby. If you don’t know, look it up. If you don’t believe them, I flat out give up on you. Oh, and regarding Scott Ritter. Either he’s wrong (note: I did not say ‘lying’) or all the other people I listed, and more besides, are.

Now, one final complaint regarding the choice of words. Words matter. Yeah, I know, I’m being facetious. Tough, I’m kinda tired of the same ol’, same ol’. The word being thrown around so much is one of my pacifistic favorites: unilateralism. And it’s a phony argument. In UNSCR687 when the U.N. ‘authorized’ member states to cooperate with Kuwait in enforcing Iraqi complicance, who led the pack? Of course, the good ol’ USA. As usual. And who will the U.N. call upon should Iraqi once again fail to comply with 11 years and 8 months of UNSC resolutions? And will we go it alone? No, I don’t think so. Seems to me that Bush is putting together a reasonable coalition. We know we can count of U.K., Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Poland, Spain, Italy, U.A.E., and likely others I’m inadverdently leaving out. BUT. Because we lack the approval of France and Germany, the turtles will moan and cry “unilateralism.” I have only one comment to make about that: I do not think that word means what you think it means. Inconceivable!

Oh, and CyberPundit, nice attempt at a punt, there. We can certainly see how successful the U.N. has been to date. I’m satisfied. Not.

So, let us hope for peace and prepare for war. If nothing else, 9/11 should have taught us to address problems before they kill thousands of our unarmed, unprepared, undefended citizenry.