Two Questions

What constitutes a preemptive attack?

When is a preemptive attack appropriate and when is it not?

Comments

[Jason Bontrager]

Pre-emptive attack: Any attack by the United States on any nation or other entity prior to receiving the explicit, written consent of the Commissioner of Base...er, the United Nations.

When appropriate: With French permission only.

[glenn]

A pre-emptive attack is not appropriate when the true reason for the attack is obscured or outright hidden from the general public. Nation-conquering & empire building, fine. But don't lie to me about it...

[Phelps]

A pre-emptive strike is one that occurs without an explicit declaration of war against the striking country by a hostile state, followed by a nuclear attack on several cities of the striking state by planes or missiles with the marks of the declaring hostile country as verified by BBC cameramen.

Pre-emptive strikes are appropriate when they are sucessful. History is written by the victors.

[chris]

If the aggressor presents a (real)
danger and the force of the pre-emptive attck is meet to the target. No nukes to take out one base camp, for example, when an A-10 could do the same.

Iraq had weapons, and never verified that they were gone...therefore the only smart thing to do is assume they had them.

If you enter a known crack house where violence regulary happens, even if nothing has happened for months, you'd be mighty stupid to enter without a good weapon.

[Ward]

A "pre-emptive attack" is an attack using whatever forces are appropriate to the perceived threat.

As far as the US is concerned (which is all I care about), a pre-emptive attack is used to eliminate a threat, or forestall an attack that is perceived by the Commander In Chief to be a "clear and present danger" to the US.

Personally, I don't like 'em. I'd much rather have an out-and-out Declaration of War, not this nonsense of Congressional authorization to use force. It's either War, or it's not.

[joatmoaf]

What constitutes a preemptive attack?
A sucker punch is one form.
The Nazis invading Poland is another form.
The 9-11 attacks on the U.S. is yet another form.
The U.S. invading Iraq (both times) and Afghanistan are not preemptive attacks.
They were warned ahead of time, so the element of suprise was lost.
When is it appropriate?
1.When an imminent threat is know.
2.To forestall an escalation of conflict or violence.
3.To win a war.
When is it not?
1.When the results of the preemptive strike are uncertain.
2.When an imminent threat is not known.
3.When all other options have proven fruitless.

[joatmoaf]

The last one is supposed to read "When all other options have NOT proven fruitless"
As in: When all options have not been considered.

[joel]

I guess preemptive means the attack is carried out before they attack you. The object is to make the enemy unable to retaliate. A nuclear first strike would be a fine example.

A preemptive attack may or may not be a surprise attack.

The attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were not preemptive. Iraq was due for a military intervention because it refused to abide the treaty it had signed with the UN. Afghanistan was a nation harboring organized elements who had declared war on the US and who the govt of Afghanistan was protecting.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was preemptive.

There is a fine quote from Thucydides. The Athenian envoy is making the people of Melos an offer they shouldn't have refused (surrender or die):

"You and we know as practical men the question of justice arises only between parties equal in strength."

You get can guess the rest.

So, I guess a preemptive attack is justified if it works and the winners write the history.

Joel

[Michael Ubaldi]

1. Preemption is the military embodiment of the Bronze Rule: "Do unto others before they do unto you."

2. Under natural law, compulsory rule is an illegitimate form of government; any military action undertaken by a liberal democracy against a dictatorship is justified. Preemptive or otherwise, any military action undertaken by a liberal democracy to democratize a nation ruled by authoritarians is not only justified but morally and, in an age of exponentially advancing technology, practically imperative.

Chris and others make the kinds of points we need to hear on the national level. The lack of Ba'athist WMD discoveries does not deductively prove nonexistence - in fact, it does a pretty poor job undoing UNSCOM's volume of evidence of outstanding weapons.

[Sam Barnes]

Mr. Ubaldi's formulation is excellent.

[Tongue Boy]

What constitutes a preemptive attack?

In common parlance, "preemptive attack" consists of the use of military force by the United States on foreign soil to defend its national interests but only if initiated on or after January 20, 2001.

When is a preemptive attack appropriate and when is it not?

Again, in common parlance, a preemptive attack is appropriate with the express written consent of the French Foreign Minister and the New York Times editorial page. No other rational, no matter its consistency or gravitas, is allowed.