I find the discussion misses the point.

When any nation feels threatened it will act. The world judges. What was wrong with the policy is exactly that one doesn't announce a normal response to threat as a new policy without raising eyebrows, since others wonder if it is an attempt at preemptive justification. No need to worry that we won't act about a perceived threat.

The argument, as it was recently, and should be, was whether there was a threat. That argument will exist, or not, notwithstanding discussions about policy. The discussions are essentially war-gaming and useful, since they explore situations and outcomes.

US in Hell. 
by viggo 

In the past of history, many strong nations have used pre-emptive wars, to reach their goals.

Germany made a pre-emptive war against Poland in 1939. USSR made pre-emptive war against Estonia, also in 1939. US made a pre-emptive war against Iraq in 2003.

Strong nations can split all kinds of international order and use all kinds of force. They can kill and bomb innocent civilians to reach their goals.

That’s the nature of wars. Killing and destroying in the interests of the strong nations.

We have seen this in centuries. It was the hope after 1945 to create a system, which could protect international order. Or at least some rules for regulation of wars.

This is the UN charter.

120 member nations in UN today, out of all 190-member nations, are democracies.

We have now seen a very powerful nation, US, leaving the path of democracy, leaving the UN Charter and the international order for war. 

The Security Council in UN is the only legitimate institution in the world today, which can legitimise war.

Any other systems will create chaos.

The war in Iraq is clear example.

Insurgence, civil war, sectarian strife, American arrogance and American war crimes and breach of Geneva Convention no.4, are results of a war, started unilateral by US, against the majority in UN Security Council.

And against the big majority among the 120 democracies in the world, who constitute half of the world’s population.

We know US use 500 billion dollars now each year on military.

A lot of destruction and killing can be done for this amount of money.

We know American's are ignorant and arrogant and start wars in other parts of the world (Vietnam and Iraq), with no clear ideas, about the local cultures and the local conditions.

So - only UN should decide, if a war is legal.

We don't want US to turn to a dangerous state like Nazi-Germany in 1939 or Communist-USSR.

But we fear such a development, if US go on with the pre-emptive strategy, like the one used in the Iraq War.

War, with such kind of preparation, and done in such a kind of arrogance, can only be a danger to the future of democracy and freedom in the World today.

US should start with some humility.

After all, US population, 300 millions, represent just 10% of the population in 120 democratic countries, with a total population of 3 billion.

And only 5% of the worlds total population of 6 billion people.

The Iraq War has made US detested in Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Arab countries. Don't proceed in this way. Drop all kinds of pre-emptive strategies in principle and try to be (again) a member of the Democratic Community on this Planet.

Thank You!

Or go to Hell.

Viggo
 

We should avoid waging unilateral preventive wars of regime change.

I have it on good authority -- the president of the United States and his toadies told me so -- that Iraq wasn't a "unilateral" war, but was one fought with a giant "coalition of the willing," and sanctioned by the U.N.  This same group of the president and his toadies claim that Iraq wasn't about "regime change," but to remove a dangerous threat to the U.S.  In fact, I can think of a certain book co-authored by a certain person that, among other things, argued to bolster that claim, but I digress.  

What happens, of course, is that slippery people (the kind of people who argue, for example, that Bush didn't lie about the threat Iraq posed to the U.S.), simply pretend that a war isn't unilateral.  Paint the target country as evil and menacing, bribe or threaten a few countries to jump on board, and you have a "legitimate" intervention by your definition, just as happened with Iraq.

Don't get me wrong: in theory, I like the idea of humanitarian intervention.  But if the country can decide that Rwanda and Darfur don't warrant intervention, but Iraq, and Syria or Iran, for example, do, while things like Bosnia and Kosovo were (and are) argued as questionable, then it looks to me like "preemptive intervention," and "humanitarian interventions" will be nothing more than window dressing.  It's essentially imperialism by another name, and I want no part of it.      

Mr.  Daalder,

This essay seems to run a lot of things together that should be kept conceptually swparate.  Because it fails to distinguish consistently importantly different kinds of intervention, it fails to address head on the troubling issue of preventive war.  We might provisionally break interventions down into two specific categories, and one catch-all category:

1. Preemptive war

2. Preventive War

3. Other kinds of armed interventions undertaken for other kinds of reasons

Preemtion occurs when one attacks an adversary that poses an immediate threat - one that is preparing an attack against you, an attack which is imminent.  Preemption is generally recognized as legitimate - the degree of legitimacy going with the degree of imminence.


A preventive war is a war launched against a merely potential threat, in asituation where there is no immediate danger of an attack from that potential threat.  Defenders of preventive war think we should sometimes attack other countries that are neither attacking us, nor organizing and preparing (in any serious way beyond the contingency paln statge) an attack against us.

General acceptance of the propriety of preventive war would indeed be a recipe for anarchy, since the world is full of rivals who are potential adversaries.

But many of the sorts of interventions you describe are neither preemptive wars nor preventive wars in the generally accepted sense.  If you invade a poor and ineptly governed country to prevent a militia from carrying out a massacre against its own people, few would call this a "preventive war".  In such a case, it is unlikely that the poor country poses even a potential, long-term threat.

Of course, just about any kind of armed intervention at all can be dressed up by propagandists as an exercise in "preventive self-defense", since one can always choose to see the bad situation you are attempting to rectify as a "breeding ground for terrorists" or some other hyperbolical threat.  Some global germophobes might be inclined to view everything bad in the world as a dangerous contamination, and might argue that until the world is totally cleased we are all at risk from innumerable threats.

But this is not what the debate about preventive war was all about.  That debate was specifically about attacking states because of the perception of their potential to develop into dangerous adversaries, with the capacity to attack us in the future.

leaving out the humanitarian interventions, disease quarantines and other actions you contemplate, should we understand you as defending the legitimacy of preventive war? 

Precisely what Mr. Dalder advocates.  If you don't like the verdict in the trial, move the venue and have a new trial.  How long will it be before we are trying to make nice with the OAS to legitimize our foolishness?

Dalder, IMHO, you are just way off the mark.  If you want to know why the UN doesn't work, just look at the frame of your post- it doesn't work fast enough for us.  When have we supplied leadership?  Was our UN Rep making an impassioned plea for the people in Rwanda?  Have we made an impassioned plea for the women and children of Darfur?  Has our President made anything more than a begrudging, going-through-the-motions swipe at the UN?  Did the UN body pretty much have it right when they were so skeptical about our Iraq claims?

If you want to know why the UN doesn't work for us, the answer is pretty simple:

They aren't our employee- they aren't supposed to work for us. We are supposed to work for the principle and the greater good of humanity.

Also what makes anyone think that a 'limited' intervention can halt disease? What happened to an alternative, like a good old fashioned quarantine, for crying out loud? Or will soldiers be vaccinating by force-legitimate force? Oh man!
I'm going to bed! G'nite
SD

"In September, the UN members embraced the idea that states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from genocide, mass killing, and other gross violations of human rights. The same logic suggests that states also have a responsibility to prevent developments on their territory that pose a threat to the security of others -- such as developments relating to weapons of mass destruction (like their acquisition or the failure to secure weapons, materials, or deadly agents against possible theft or diversion); the harboring, support, or training of terrorists; or environmental dangers (like failing to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases or the destruction of the rain forest)."

I am a big proponent of the emerging Responsibility to Protect , but I think you've twisted it almost beyond recognition. The logic that argues that the international community can act to prevent or halt genocide is not the same logic that would argue for a militarized response to environmental degredation and potential pandemics. The Responsibility to Protect is predicated on international human rights and humanitarian law and on the emerging concept of universal jurisdiction for genocide and other crimes against humanity. There is no such body of law in place for protection of the environment (Kyoto hardly qualifies in this regard) or disease response.

The underlying premise of your post is that military intervention is effective. I believe, that this is by no means a settled point. Even humanitarian interventions have a decidedly mixed record. It seems to me that the very suggestion that military intervention could be an effective way to protect the environment is ludicrous on its face. Not only is it completely untenable in the domestic and international political reality we inhabit, it is also ridiculous on its own merits - war is an extremely destructive project, and is hardly suited for protecting the land on which it is fought (e.g burning oil fields in Kuwait, depleted uranium, Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

War and disease also tend to go hand in hand. Military spending has a way of redistributing resources away from civilian use (especially in developing countries, but also in the U.S.), and the practice of war has a way of drastically limiting civilian access to humanitarian resources (witness Darfur). Guns, bullets, and bombs cannot possibly create a suitable climate for responding to an emerging pandemic. Further, if recent history is any guide, the country that would most likely need to be prodded into a better response to an emerging disease would be China - are you really suggesting that the best course of action if (when?) bird flu mutates into a disease targetting humans might be to invade China to get them to react faster?

You also lament the weakness of the UN in responding to global crises. But the problem at the UN isn't structural, it is very much political. No amount of institutional reform will change the fact that there is often insufficient political will among the major players to deal with the types of crisis you cite. For instance, you complain that the UN has not been active enough in Darfur. Since you have ignored the fact that the UN has a considerable humanitarian presence on the ground responding daily to the crisis there (an effort that is chronically underfunded by funding countries), and that the UN is actively backing a peace process between the major parties, I presume that you are referring to the absence of a UN force (I'm assuming too that the UN-authorized African Union force doesn't count for you either?). The absence of blue helmets in Darfur is not a symptom of UN incompetence, but of a lack of political will on the part of Security Council members. The U.S. talks the big talk about genocide in Darfur, but is in no hurry to do anything about it - through the UN or otherwise. Other Council members, notably China, are none to excited about the emergence of conditional sovereignty, and tend to resist humanitarian interventions across the board - a problem that would not go away if the Security Council was marginalized.

You can get all agitated about the UN, but the political problems it faces aren't going to go away if regional bodies or 'coalitions of democracies' are empowered to act military without UN sanction - in fact, I think your political (and military) problems would only multiply.

Will Mr. Daalder please site a couple of examples of pre-emptive wars that turned out well for the attacking country? If he can I may listen to his argument. But of course there has been no such thing. The argument is all fantasy.

Why can't we just have as sane reasonable policy that targets terrorists like Bin Laden instead of targeting nation-states. The Japanese launched Pearl Harbor to preempt the US from becoming the predominant power in the Pacific. We didn't see that as very reasonable, did we.

History lesson for the teacher. The Japanese attacked to prevent us from being able to stop them, in their imperialism, and no that wasn't reasonable. We attacked the Taliban Government in Afghanistan when they refused to turn over Osama, or shut down the terrorist training centers. We attacked Sadaam's regime when he failed to comply with the security counsel resolutions, and the cease fire agreements reached after he invaded Kuwait. We told him we were coming if he did not comply. We lined up and said "we are really serious here" (he chose to listen to Dominique de Villapan and think Bush was "blustering." He was wrong.

Other people in the world think we are loony and scary when we talk about this kind of kooky stuff.

Maybe that's why ole Momar Khadafi gave up his weapons programs so quickly after the fall of Sadaam (I know, I'm sure he would have done that too if we had just sat back and let those sanctions work for another week, everthing would have changed peacefully).

I think the point that the effectiveness of preemptive military action is questionable has been raised successfully by some of the other responses (and history).  What are the preferable options to disolving or changing regimes with poor humanitarian records?  Are trade sanctions useful?  Are there steps that we could take that would reward desirable behavior rather than simply looking to punish the evil doers?  Are there policies that would work that don't involve killing people? 

These aren't rhetorical questions.  I never tire of criticizing this administration, but I'd like to have a viable alternative for spurring change that would function without military invasions.  I'm violently opposed to war.  

 It is not a  matter of process.  Alliances of democracies? Democracies such as the US and Britain perhaps? Killed dozens of times more Iraqis than all "terror" attacks combinded in an illegal, immoral, and broadly condemned aggression. Representative governments are responsible?

It is not a matter of process it not a matter of logic abuilding either. Daalder refers to a point previously made & easily demolished by his own words no less:

The notion of conditional sovereignty is central to the emergence of a new norm of state responsibility.

1. In September, the UN members embraced the idea that states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from genocide, mass killing, and other gross violations of human rights.


2.  The same logic suggests that states also have a responsibility to prevent developments on their territory that pose a threat to the security of others -- such as developments relating to weapons of mass destruction (like their acquisition or the failure to secure weapons, materials, or deadly agents against possible theft or diversion); the harboring, support, or training of terrorists; or environmental dangers (like failing to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases or the destruction of the rain forest).



The logic of the first undermines the entirety of the second.  Actual mass killings, gross human rights vioations and mere threats are hardly equivalent. The duty in the first is narrower than the second...Yet duty does not follow ability does it?

Bush has built nothing. Daalder's built a logic fallacy. to cover aggressions yet to fail


 

I would suggest that the problem is not  preemptive or preventive war versus reactive war or defensive war.  The problem is limited war or a political war versus total war.

In one of the great ironies the Right and the Left share a view that the people of countries we find, for whatever reason, objectionable, but the leadership is evil.  Decapitate the leadership or avoid harming the people and you have the moral basis for war.  

The problem with this theory is that it seems faulty on the ground and it is inconsistent with American character.  I point out that the insurgency according to Joe Klein is as a result of Saddem Hussein organizing and paying his Sunni supporters. Needless to say we could bring it to an end in the same way we brought German and Japanese resistence to an end.  (Please don't tell me that this is not WWII, I know)

However, neither Right nor Left wants to destroy Iraq and then rebuild it.  It would seem to me that Americans need a debate not about when we start wars but about the type of wars we choose to fight and how we think about the people we fight.  Was Saddem imposed on his people or was he an organic outgrowth of Iraq?  

No doctrine of national security can be democratic, safe or effective if a blank check of war powers is handed to the White House. This outrageously unamerican and terrifying trend has got to be stopped before any new doctrine, most especially preemption, can be adopted.

The Security Council remains the preferred vehicle for authorizing such action, because since the end of the Cold War it has emerged as the most legitimate forum for deciding these questions.....Yet, even as it has acted more frequently, states have not always been able to count on the Council to make timely decisions.

I think I'd like to quote Mick Jagger: you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need.

It's very clear to me. Either you're for unilateralism or you're for trying this thing progress, community of nations stuff, whether it's the U.N. or something new and different in the future.

You don't like the results of the system you're working at, keep working at it. Don't have a temper tantrum and sulk off to do your own thing.

China doesn't agree something should be done about this or that potential genocidal situation and you think they are wrong? Well, tough. Work at it, like grown-ups. History might show that China was right and you were wrong, that intervening would have made things worse.

Can't you see the clarity of the difference between Gulf War I and Gulf War II? There is strength in numbers, there is wisdom in numbers. Yes, history shows frenzies can happen with coalitions of nations states, that the world can go mad. But there is much much more danger of madness in unilateralism. Checks and balances, you know? What else is there?

How can you even consider anything else? Rule of law! If it's wrong sometimes, it's wrong sometimes. Mistakes will be made, but it's the best answer humankind can present so far.

Suggestion to go back and read some Dag Hammarskjold for inspiration.

I'm generally in agreement with Ivo on matters of humanitarian intervention, but advocacy for preventive war troubles me.

I think Ivo is correct that there may be future situations that call for military action even though they don't rise to the standard of imminent threat that justifies preemptive war.  To my mind, these need to be situations where the feared outcome is probable, and utterly catastrophic in the relatively short-term (so that you can't take a slower, nonmilitary approach - this proviso would rule out military action to solve any environmental problem I can imagine).

But surely, the kind of situation that calls for such strong stuff will be exceedingly rare, and I wonder if building legal mechanisms to justify it is the right way to approach it.  

Suppose the statistics play out such that we can be assured that one such situation will arise every 25 years (that strikes me as unrealistically frequent).  Do we really need to bend international law to accommodate that?  Further, once we build the deliberative system to make preventive war possible, shouldn't we be concerned that its existence is a sort of invitation to potential aggressors to hide more nefarious designs by seeking justification for 'preventive' war? 

On the other hand, if we have no such system, and preventive war remains outside the law, it seems to me that the diplomatic community can devise ad hoc responses on the occasions where some nation sees fit to launch a preventive war. Steps to take would range from relatively toothless condemnations to sanctions to a coordinated military response like in the first Gulf War.  But to the extent that a nation can demonstrate that the threat was probable, catastrophic, and sudden once launched, the international community might judge that taking no action is appropriate. 

It seems to me that preventive war is such an extreme measure that should remain outside the law.  But, as with individuals, justice may require bending the rules sometimes to account for self-defense.

So, is it ok for European states to start a preventative war against us to stop that?

Not so far fetched.  The naive idea that we can continue to be the world's unilateral super bully without provoking the time honored tradition of alliances against bullies is just one of the neocon utopian fantasies. 

The concern voiced about the future and possibilities of the UN is one I have been seeing in a lot of literature lately; specifically, Francis Fukuyama and G. John Ikenberry make a similar shift to regional organizations as a smaller point in their  PPNS report of the Working Group on Grand Strategic Choices.  I have a hard time accepting a willingness to push the UN aside in favor of smaller regional multilaterals.  Obviously the UN needs A LOT of reform, noone would argue otherwise.  However, it has been and remains the only institution that brings every country in the world to the table.  It is the only forum for multilateral discussion and decision-making in which no country is excluded and in which states like those in the group of 77 can have a strong voice.  I agree that regional multilateral institutions are an important part of creating an interconnected world to realize security and economic goals, but I strongly believe that the UN is not to be pushed aside and has an important role to play.  Even if we only look at its symbolic role, it is important in that it is the only truly global international institution, and as long as it survives, so will the norms of international cooperation it represents.

Actually his first glimpse of power came in 1963 when he was part of a CIA supported coup. The guy's a mass murderer. However, we were sold this war as something that had to be done in March 2003 without another UN resolution because we were on the verge of being attacked. That was bogus and the Bushies knew it. That war was launched for a variety of reasons. Wolfowitz even said they pushed the WMD angle because they thought it would be the most effective argument.

Actually, Hussein did comply with the resolution that the weapons inspectors be allowed to re-enter Iraq and check where they wanted. The UN didn't find anything & asked for more time.

Sorry, wrong again UN Security Counsel Resolution 1441 clearly reads:
...Iraq did not provide an accurate, full, final and complete disclosure...of all aspects of its WMD and ballistic missle weapons, production facilities locations...that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites by UNSCOM and IAEA... and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA...Iraq has been and remains in material breech of its obligations... (and here's the best part) to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations...the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations...

Sadaam didn't take his final opportunity, he did not comply, and certainly never let inspectors "check where they wanted."  Again, it's fact, it's history, it can't be changed to make your point mpre feasable.
http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=S/RES/1441%2
0(2002)&Lang=E&Area=UNDOC

Ivo,congrats on a good article. it's thoughtful and nuanced and courageous given the inevitable reaction from certain quarters, some of which is on display here. it's important that moderates like yourself and Jim stand up to the Deans and other more radical elements of the party if we're ever to get back into power and be in a position to govern responsibly.

" By calling Iraq a "nation-state" I'm assuming, then, that you acknowledged Saddam Hussein as the legitimate leader of Iraq despite the fact that he was every bit the terrorist that Bin Laden is.  Hussein, in fact, came to power as a common street criminal; which is precisely why he was not recognized by most nations. "

Gettysburg: what is saddam's terroristhistory? Do words matter? Whatare you talking about? He was not recognized by most nations? Which ones? The United States recognized his regime and did business with him. What are you talking about?

People tend to forget the reason why the UN Security Council rejected the call to arms by Bush.  France had lucrative oil contracts with the Hussein Government for their northern oil fields.  Chirac knew that with a diposed Saddam Hussein, those contracts would likely be null and void in the eyes of the United States.  In point of fact, notice how China and Russia, who were both AGAINST using force, merely abstained from voting rather than using their veto.  France, realizing they were going to lose billions of dollars in oil revenue, decided to bring the U.S. down with them.  Had they not vetoed the UN vote, it likely would have passed.  And the irony is terrific when noting that France was outraged when the U.S. did not let any of their companies bid for Iraqi reconstruction contracts.  Bravo Mr. Bush!

Architect

 I must admit I haven't heard of many French apologists lately.  To opine that the reason for French opposition was out of a desire for peace is out of the question.  And if they were, "concerned about the precedent that would be set and likely future US behavior," as you surmise, had they not vetoed the resolution it would have been an international operation, not the feared unilateral offensive by the U.S.  The oil contracts with Iraq were not small, and when taking into consideration the geographical size of France itself, made it even more lucrative.  To further illustrate Chirac's anti-U.S. plan, his courtship with Germany (who had no vote at the time) as well as constant lobbying with Russia (which ultimately failed because Putin abstained from voting) provides quantatative proof that Chirac wanted to create a seperate bloc within the free world astride of the United States.  He too ultimately failed, but he did succeed at tarnishing the character of George W. Bush.   

Pickett's Charge was actually grounded in sound logic.  On July 2nd (the second day of Gettysburg), Lee sent Longstreet to hit the Union left while General Ewell was to his the right.  Longstreet bitterly protested such an action but carried out the order late in the afternoon and very nearly broke through the Union line--the exposed gap was plugged just in time by the 1st Minnesota, while Chamberlain and the 20th Maine held the heights of Little Round Top.  The point being, the next day, Lee reasoned that since he had hit both flanks hard the previous day, surely the Union center must be weakened in lieu of Meade sending reinforcements to the flanks.  Lee, for the one and only time in the war, was horribly mistaken.  He allowed George Pickett to send his eager, and as yet under-used division, men toward the Union center.  Meade had re-arranged his men accordingly as if anticipating Lee's move.  The result was the biggest Confederate disaster of the war--not necessarily in terms of casualties, but certainly for morale.

 The Iraq War, on the other hand, was intended to be fought, in the long run, as a Guerilla War.  The difference being the Pentagon thought it would be fought by actual Guerilla fighters--not roadside bombs. In this, the Pentagon made a huge mistake--like Lee did at Gettysburg.  The difference, however, is that the U.S. has almost infinite resources with which to wage war.  Iraqi troops are beginning to fight albeit slowly.  If U.S. soldiers are frustrated at not having anyone to fire back at, they should keep in mind that the sooner the Iraqi's are trained, the sooner they can leave and not have to worry about firing on anyone.