Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect? (2003)

Key Points The Bush administration's concept of preemptive action has become a lightning rod in domestic and international politics. Proponents see it as a prudent response terrorism and rogue states, which may not be deterred from threatening or using weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Critics contend that concept will exacerbate distrust of United States on part of allies and potential partners and may make rogue states more risk-prone. There is a good deal of misunderstanding and confusion about this concept. Preemption usually is associated with military strikes, but financial, diplomatic, and law enforcement measures also can be used in preemptive ways enhance security. Preemption is not a new option. U.S. officials have contemplated preemptive military actions against WMD several times, usually without taking action. What is new is open discussion of preemption. Successful preemptive strikes require precise, prompt actions with decisive effects. Thus, United States must be prepared invest in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, planning assets, and, potentially, new military forces. The National Security Strategy of United States does not establish clear criteria for preemptive military action. Apprehension about current policy might be assuaged with an elaboration of general conditions and circumstances, or factors be weighed, for preemptive use of force. ********** What role should preemptive action play in U.S. national strategy? In wake of first public statements by President George W. Bush in June 2002, and in buildup military action against Iraq, issue quickly became a lightning rod for controversy. While some commentators hailed preemption as a valuable concept whose time had come, others condemned it as a dangerous precedent that could damage American interests, strain our relations overseas, and make United States a feared unilateralist in international system. All hue and cry has done little clarify issues and choices that policymakers face in weighing utility and limits of concept. The National Security Strategy of United States of America (September 2002) states that the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively prevent rogue states or terrorists from threatening or using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against United States or its friends and allies (see page 2). Yet there is much misunderstanding and confusion about administration's concept of preemption, which has led a great deal of apprehension. Some of confusion is self-inflicted, some is circumstantial, and some results from willful misreading. While administration was laying out a general concept, it did so against backdrop of Iraq. It is not surprising, then, that some have failed distinguish between two. Iraq may be first case study in new policy--although some argue that action against Iraq was not preemption but a preventive war, while others argue it was a continuation of action from 1991 Gulf War. In any event, Iraq is not sum total of policy. In popular mind, preemption is synonymous with use of force, and specifically with military strikes. But concept has a broader meaning and application, as implied by administration's careful emphasis on preemptive action. To preempt is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary as to prevent from happening or taking place: forestall; preclude. Many of preemptive actions that United States is likely undertake will be nonmilitary. And nonmilitary methods of preemptive action are likely be less controversial than military preemption. Historical Antecedents There are a number of historical examples of United States contemplating preemptive military actions including against WMD-armed adversaries (at least partially motivated by preemption or prevention, sometimes in addition other motives), but only a small number of examples in which preemptive military action was actually taken. …