In \"The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,\" a 2002 re

Question

In "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," a 2002 report to Congress, President George W. Bush argued that Americans were increasingly threatened by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. To address these dangers, he announced that, "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. …[T]he only path to peace and security is the path of action." In essence, the president declared that the United States reserved the right to strike enemies before they attacked Americans.

Theory became reality when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Speaking to the nation, Bush argued that Iraq "threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder" and declared, "We will meet that threat now, with our [military forces] so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."1

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those who disagree with President Bush. Annan told the General Assembly that the idea of preemptive war "represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years. My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification."2

Preemptive war, hitting before you get hit, is controversial at both the practical and legal levels (Walzer, 2004). Pragmatically, striking enemies before they attack has clear benefits. However, liabilities also exist. What if you are wrong, and people die because of that? Another worry is that if you claim the right to preemptive war, others also have that right. It is important to ask yourself if world stability and security are enhanced or lessened by the universal application of the principle of legitimate preemptive war.

Legal controversy about preemptive war theory centers on the obligations of the United States and every other country that has signed the UN Charter, which is a binding treaty. Two articles in the Charter are especially relevant. Article 51 says that "nothing in the Charter" should be interpreted as denying a country "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs." Article 39 stipulates that except in self-defense, it is the UN Security Council that "shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and . . . decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Deciding about the wisdom of preemptive war is more than a "for-or-against" choice. Instead, you can be categorically for it, categorically against it, or favor preemptive war only in limited circumstances. If you favor the limited use option, then you also have to specify when preventive war is permissible and when it is not. Remember, the standard that you adopt as legitimate for your country also applies to every other country.

What Do You Think?
When, if ever, do threats justify war?

In "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," a 2002 report to Congress, President George W. Bush argued that Americans were increasingly threatened by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. To address these dangers, he announced that, "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. …[T]he only path to peace and security is the path of action." In essence, the president declared that the United States reserved the right to strike enemies before they attacked Americans.

Theory became reality when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. Speaking to the nation, Bush argued that Iraq "threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder" and declared, "We will meet that threat now, with our [military forces] so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."1

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those who disagree with President Bush. Annan told the General Assembly that the idea of preemptive war "represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years. My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification."2

Preemptive war, hitting before you get hit, is controversial at both the practical and legal levels (Walzer, 2004). Pragmatically, striking enemies before they attack has clear benefits. However, liabilities also exist. What if you are wrong, and people die because of that? Another worry is that if you claim the right to preemptive war, others also have that right. It is important to ask yourself if world stability and security are enhanced or lessened by the universal application of the principle of legitimate preemptive war.

Legal controversy about preemptive war theory centers on the obligations of the United States and every other country that has signed the UN Charter, which is a binding treaty. Two articles in the Charter are especially relevant. Article 51 says that "nothing in the Charter" should be interpreted as denying a country "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs." Article 39 stipulates that except in self-defense, it is the UN Security Council that "shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and . . . decide what measures shall be taken . . . to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Deciding about the wisdom of preemptive war is more than a "for-or-against" choice. Instead, you can be categorically for it, categorically against it, or favor preemptive war only in limited circumstances. If you favor the limited use option, then you also have to specify when preventive war is permissible and when it is not. Remember, the standard that you adopt as legitimate for your country also applies to every other country.

What Do You Think?
When, if ever, do threats justify war?

Explanation / Answer

War in any angle is not good for the world. It has brought more destruction than benefits to both the parties involved. It’s a continuation of our animal instinct to retain dominance over others. In olden days, when people were not civilized, they waged war against other nations in order to expand their territory. In the medieval days it was for resources and now it’s for prevention. George W. Bush’s statement on preemptive war on certain nations is to prevent the attacks before it happens. It’s like the minority report movie where a group of people prevent crime before it occurs, otherwise they have the capability of identifying potential criminals thus preventing the crime.

If America has the right to strike any nation that they feel is a threat, the reverse is also true that any nation can strike America if they sense America is getting ready to attack their country.The then U.N. Secretary Kofi Annan has warned the US to rethink about their strategy of preemptive wars as they would bring more remorse and anger amongst the nations they attack and cause an unwanted tension in the world.

Just because something seems to be a threat doesn’t mean I should behave in the same way. I can only anticipate and protect myself but if I attack first, then what’s the difference? The other person might have sensed me as a threat and now it would become mutual. America always wanted a reason for war because they wanted some resource of those countries. It has also nurtured most of the terrorists groups against Russia during the cold war. Any war that’s waged during these days has a materialistic gain in the minds of the political leaders. They just need to keep them in the political race, so they need issues to fight. What if there is no issue? Create one and that’s what few of the developed nations do.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.