Difference between revisions of "Preemptive war"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 25: Line 25:
 
*[[Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996]]
 
*[[Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996]]
 
*[[Defense Science Board]]
 
*[[Defense Science Board]]
 +
*"[[forward strategy of freedom]]"
 
*[[Homeland defense]]
 
*[[Homeland defense]]
 
*[[Homeland security]]
 
*[[Homeland security]]
 +
*[[Iraqi Civil Defense Corps]]
 
*[[National Security Strategy of September 2002]]
 
*[[National Security Strategy of September 2002]]
 
*[[National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction]]
 
*[[National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction]]
 
*[[neoconservative]]
 
*[[neoconservative]]
 
*[[Patriot Act I]]
 
*[[Patriot Act I]]
 +
*[[peacekeeping]]
 +
*[[Post-war Iraq/NATO]]
 
*[[Proactive Preemptive Operations Group]]
 
*[[Proactive Preemptive Operations Group]]
 
*[[Project for the New American Century]]
 
*[[Project for the New American Century]]

Revision as of 06:50, 5 December 2003

Preemptive war has been defined as a "military action undertaken absent an imminent threat or ongoing attack by an aggressor ... a decision to go to war without clear and convincing evidence of the need for us to defend ourselves against an imminent attack."[1]

Quotable Quotes

Preemptive war "punishes the defenseless not for what they have done or are doing but for what they might have done or could do." -- Eduardo Galeano, PaxHumana, September 2003.


"Described as "preventive defense" or "extended deterrence" by its supporters--but decried as "a new form of gunboat diplomacy" by its detractors--a new program called the "Counterproliferation Initiative" [Presidential Decision Directive PDD/NSC 18] was unveiled in December 1993 by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin.

"There was considerable controversy over what "counterproliferation" meant. But it was widely interpreted as indicating that the United States--having recently demonstrated overwhelming military superiority in the Gulf War--would now flex its muscles even further, looking into the ways and means of preemptively striking regional troublemakers or would-be attackers.

"Although there was talk of building conventional weapons capable of destroying deeply buried targets like command centers (Aspin said both new strategies and new military capabilities were needed), the initiative envisioned the use of U.S. nuclear weapons to defeat chemical or biological weapons. The idea, simply, was to "locate, neutralize, or destroy" others' weapons of mass destruction before they could be used. For the first time, the United States openly added targets in the Third World to its nuclear-weapons targeting plan.

"Now [April 2001], after eight years of reality, the initiative has morphed into something much less than promised. Author Henry Sokolski describes the process.

"The Fate of President Bill Clinton's "Counterproliferation Initiative" was tethered to its strategic assumptions. An initial interest in devising plans for preemptive strikes against foreign proliferation activities simply ignored the American culture's bias against launching Pearl Harbor-like attacks. More important, the initiative at first presumed that some military-technical means could neutralize proliferation problems. And that, in fact, turned out to be inherently difficult, if not impossible."

Source: Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, March/April 2001.


Other Related SourceWatch Resources

External Links

Preemptive War Against Iraq

Future Preemptive Actions