The difference between Pre-emptive vs. Preventive war

Let’s make an important distinction between pre-emptive war and preventive war.

Pre-emptive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy that represents an imminent threat of attack. The Six-Day War was a pre-emptive war.

Preventive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy before they can become an imminent threat of attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preventive war.

Here’s why this is important:

The war against Iraq was justified primarily as a pre-emptive war. But now the WMD are nowhere to be found.

Am I glad that Saddam is gone? Absolutely. I was in favor of regime change before, during, and after the war. It was enough for me that he had links to that thug Arafat’s terror organization. After all, the Bush Doctrine is clear: if you support terrorists, you are a terrorist.

Had POTUS sold it in those terms, I think the American public would have bought it.

But if it turns out that the intel on WMD was cooked, or if it turns out that top-level administration officials lied, or if it turns out that POTUS wanted a preventive war along, but knew we wouldn’t buy it, then I fear we’ve lost more than we gained.

Related Reading:

Eve of Destruction is a provocative contribution to a growing international debate over the acceptance of preventive military action. In the first work to identify the trends that have led to a coming age of preventive war, Thomas M. Nichols uses historical analysis as well as interviews with military officials from around the world to trace the anticipatory use of force from the early 1990s—when the international community responded to a string of humanitarian crises in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo—to today’s current and potential actions against rogue states and terrorists. He makes a case for a bold reform of U.S. foreign policy, and of the United Nations Security Council itself, in order to avert outright anarchy.

Preventive War explores the preventive war option in American foreign policy, from the early Cold War strategic problems created by the growth of Soviet and Chinese power, to the post-Cold War fears of a nuclear-armed North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

“Striking First provides a variety of expert perspectives on the role of preemption and prevention in the evolution of U.S. strategic doctrine, the internal political struggles that shaped that doctrine, the impact of these changes on American presidential power and legal processes, and their ramifications for the international order and the limits of American power. One cannot comprehend our rapidly changing world without understanding these international and domestic processes, and Striking First provides timely and penetrating insights on these critical subjects.” — Jack S. Levy, Rutgers University