Preemptive Strikes Justified?

Wars get started for a number of reasons, but perhaps the oddest one that people have come up with is preemptive war. The idea is that two countries foresee an armed conflict somewhere in the future but decide to act upon it now rather than waiting. While the idea of protecting the citizens of a country is perhaps the most important, it brings up the question of where the line is drawn between aggressor and victim. When one country views another as imminently threatening, does it have the right to strike first in defense?

The popular answer, in today’s age, seems to be yes. A specific definition which is generally agreed upon has two main conditions. One is that the preemptive strike has to be equal or proportionate to what the perceived threat is. Meaning that one countries strike can’t be overwhelming when compared to the perceived threat. The other condition is that the threat level has to have reached a level where a first-strike strategy is a requirement and that it has to be a quick and not prolonged affair (Welsh). His type of thinking seems a little backwards, that in order to prevent a war in the future, a war must be started in the present. It’s almost a lazy approach to politics in that the countries have decided there is a problem but that there is nothing which they can do to help it other than go to war.

Whether or not preemptive attacks are morally justified, there are examples of them being accepted worldwide. For instance, in 2007, Israel destroyed a nuclear facility in Syria with nearly no reaction. There was no immediate threat of Syria using some sort of nuclear based weapon. However, the jump from developing weapons to nuclear power isn’t an overnight one. The attack was deemed preemptive, as a threat could be seen down the road and off in the future (Cooper). There is also the example of the United States invading Iraq, which was justified as a preemptive strike. The Bush strategists were probably realist politicians when it came to war, in the sense that conflicts are inevitable and that they should only be conducted if necessary. Seeing as a conflict was inevitable with Iraq, there was a push to get the first strike in first to eliminate the perceived threat (Orend). This would be an example of a preemptive strike which possibly used much more force than called for, as well as lasted much longer than required to take away the perceived threat.

Cooper, Helene, Mark Mazzetti. “An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.”. New York Time, October 10, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/washington/10diplo.html