When are, if ever, pre-emptive strikes justified?

Freiedrich von Hohenzollern (Frederick the Great), while still the heir apparent, wrote a work which has come to be known as The Anti-Machiavel, and in which he describes in detail the situations in which he considered a pre-emptive war to be justified. He was, of course, much concerned with the security of Prussia, a state which he described justifiably as defenseless against invasion. Predicated upon his notion of the duty of a Prince to the People, he contended that in those situations in which an enemy would likely invade, the Prince should seize the initiative to attack first, and carry the war to the enemy, rather than suffer the destruction attendant upon an invasion. He also contended that such pre-emptive war were justified to secure the national interest. In the latter case, this was his justification for attacking the holdings of the Austrian Archduchess, Maria Theresa, shortly after both he and she acceded to their respective thrones (their fathers died within a few weeks of one another).

It would seem that the contention of self-defense is the causus belli cited by the current administration for the invasion of Iraq; their critics, of course, say this is disingenuous, contending that it is national interest served in such a war, and the more critical contending that this has to do with cronyism and the advantage to be enjoyed by a select few.

A pre-emptive attack is designed to thwart an attack by an enemy that is expected to occur in the future. As such, it is primarily defensive in nature, even though it is offensive in execution.

The UN Charter, in article 51, sets forth a nation's right to self-defense:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Nothing in that article suggests that a nation has a right to launch a pre-emptive attack as a means of self-defense.

Some commentators hold that a signatory to the UN Charter still retains a right to launch pre-emptive attacks, but even they regard this right as highly circumscribed, applying only to those instance where an enemy's attack is imminent or where there is no practicable alternative (see this short paper (.pdf file) for a brief, informative discussion of this issue).

Unhelpfully only hindsight tells you!

Integillence is often spectulative and poor, and when reasonable warped by politics e.g. WMD.

Intervention merely escalates a situation and brings a quicker resolution of a single front of a problem - it doesn't solve the underlying situation.

America unfortunately has alot of history of intervention over the past 80 years so each side can say the other was doing untoward things first. All you get is a muddle. Remember one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

It seems to me, from this discussion, that one gains some suspicion that the enemy is preparing to do them harm. And one determines just where a preemptive strike might best be executed.

It has been noted that previous behavior is an indicator of future action. So taking serious measures in response to previous actions against current buildups seems a reasonable argument.

Destruction of the enemy's ability to launch attacks against you, especially when the enemy has a history of launching attacks against you and is building the attack forces seems reasonable.

However, preemptive strikes seem, to me, to be more at early attacks when the enemy has no history of attacking you, nor does the enemy have the resources or capablities to attack you. I do not consider insults or laughing at you in your face to be attacks worthy of military action.

Of course much of this becomes moot when politics, egos, and arguments get involved.

Kelly

Some people believe that EVERYONE is "out to get them".
Such people, should "pre-emptive strike policy" be considered ethical.... would be justified in killing indiscriminately.
In doing so, they would guarantee fulfillment their premonition, wouldn't they?

Perhaps... the Perpetrators (whether it be Al Q or some other Rogue Agency) considered "9/11" a "pre-emptive strike"?
Would make their crime ETHICAL or defensible?

I think not.

If the biggest, baddest, toughest, most muscular, best athlete, fastest, hardest hitting kid in the schoolyard...a kid who also occasionally plays the part of a schoolyard bully...

..."preemptively" punches out another kid who is smaller, not so bad, not so tough, not so muscular, not so athletic, not so fast,not so hard hitting....

...ya can pretty well chalk it up to the fact that the former is a bully inappropriately throwing his weight around.

That holds especially if the schoolyard bully tries to justify his actions by protesting that his preemption was intended to protect himself and others from a perceived possible first strike from the smaller guy.

But when armies get large, complex and communications break down and situations get mis-understood and mis-interpreted and internal games get played - a first strike mentality is just a different slant on the prisoners dilemma game - everyone has to lose - its just the degrees that vary.

The only way not to lose is to change the game by manipulating external factors so you and everyone else never wants to play.

If only hindsight is your guide - is this an argument that pre-emptive strikes are never justified? Meaning, we KNOW once a person attacks us that they have attacked us. We never know if a person is going to attack us and when it is reasonable to punch them out first.

Jason

there is NO justification for a preemptive strike, under any circumstances; it is ethically wrong - you cannot do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and end up on the right side of "right"!

However, as a society's leader, occasionally a decision has to be made to do something 'ethically' wrong, in order to execute your mandate as leader, and protector of your 'group'.

Placing yourself in the 'wrong', in this case is a form of personal sacrifice (of your overall values) for the good (in your best informed opinion) of the many!

[You cannot render the action "right", but you can justify it to yourself (recognizing that it is inherently 'wrong'; even though others may support your actions).]

BoGoWo:

Why is there never justification? What about pre-emptive strikes make them NEVER justified.

(I just want to know what your thoughts are here - nothing more.)

TTF

Would it have been justified to attack the Japanese aircraft carriers north of Hawaii on 6 December 1941?

It would depend more on the information available to them then, than the information available to us now.

The US will worry the morality of the premptive attack sufficiently and often act otherwise.Despite the concept being foreign to our stated beliefs, our past centennial history is just the opposite.( tampico, Costa rica, the Phillipines, Vietnam, and there are more.)
We make ourselves believe that John Adams is our teacher, when we more often make first strike policy like Teddy Roosevelt.

Jim - I am not sure - your point?

Farmerman - So your saying that we will act worried - act as if our policy is not to strike first - and then do it anyway?

Just trying to be clear.

TTF

The NEW Competitive Ethic...
"Winning isn't the most important thing... it is the ONLY thing!"

This ethic is the route to constant conflict and hostility. It is based upon SELFishness...
And it is the dominant Culture of the New World economy AND Order.

"Honor" is NOT a matter of Flashy Uniforms and superior Firepower.

Honor is a matter of Dignity and Principles, empathy, compassion and Good Faith.

Dominance is the objective of BULLIES.

AMEN!

But that doesn't stop someone from taking action to prevent themselves being hit/hurt. The long way home worked at school sometimes. Othertimes throwing the first punch reduced the harassment thrown my way.

Kelly

Magus,

I hear the soap box - but what does this have to do with the concept of preemptive strikes? Are they justified?

TF

TTF-If we look back on just thhe last 100 + years, the US has had many many small campaigns to banana republics, Mexico etc. We say one thing and do another.
We have no credibility in the community of nations. We will attack any little guy who has limited capabilities to fight back.George will go down in the book like T Roosevelt and Wilson, (not to mention Ike and Kennedy)
Theres a statement from John Adams that says America has no need of precipitating and engaging in foreign adventures. Weve always been 2 faced.

When weve said that this aint about the oil, its about the oil. Im more and more convinced

A justified pre-emptive strike, one that the bushidos would never have the cajones to preform.


=====

It was dark. Really dark in there and my eyes were just getting adjusted to the dark when I bumped into his leg, or some part of his anatomy.

"'cuse me." I said and I moved on into the density of the crowd.

"Fnyk you, and your 'cuse me." the voice said over the blap-blap-baa-alam of the music.

I shoulda oughta jist kept on keeping on.

But they thought we were drunk when we left the last place we had been to and I'm sure they were relieved when we left a pile of money on the wet table top and headed out for this place.

This place where we have been insulted just because it was too dark to see this yoyo's booted leg.

So I turned around.

My friend Gerald groaned but did not waver an inch.

"What was that you said fyvkhead?" I inquired?

"Waash where you gon', that's what." he replied.

Other, more vivid, repartee ensued resulting in him stepping down from his barstool and starting to remove his leather jacket.

=Something in my brain that had not been completely disconnected by the hours of previous inbibement recalled that this was the prefect time for a preemptive strike.=

Which is why I coldcocked the sorry mustard with my left hand neatly, squarely and with a follow-thru that would be considered classic if it had only been on film.

I then announced to my two companions that maybe it was time to go find a breakfast cafe and we retired to same without further incident.

I had the eggs over easy with a side of crisp bacon while Gerald kept an eye out the window for the cruisers.

Joe

Nothing in the forgoing msg should be construed as a justification for a pre-emptive strike against a soverigen nation, it just seems to me that the Bushies have the same sodden outlook on the world that I did that night, the difference being one pissedoff cowboy with a flattened ear as opposed to the emnity of the civilized world.