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

I've ben thinking about the analogy of the bully. I've had some experience with bullies in my schoolboy days. I, too, used to take the long way home sometimes to avoid known bullies. But then I discovered an interesting thing about bullies. They are almost always cowards. I found that the best defence against a bully is simply not to allow him to bully you. Once the bully realizes that if he continues his taunts, he might get hurt before he can hurt you, he'll back down. It worked for me every time. The pre-emptive strike was hardly ever necessary. The knowledge that it might come did the trick.

As has been stated by others, historically the US has pulled any number of pre-emptive strikes in the past. They're never called that. They're described as interventions or something equally bland. But it really used to be about the bananas. Now it's about the oil.

Farmer - Thanks for the clarification. I often wonder what the history books my son will read in 15 years will say about the war.

TTF

TTF-ya wanna know how cynical I am?
Since Texas and California provide statewide guidance for all school texts used in those states, I cannot imagine how anything but a total historical whitewash will be given this admin and its war on Iraq, because these two states pretty much can dictate whats written in texts and textbook producers are lazy.

None of these is an example of a pre-emptive attack. A pre-emptive attack is, as the name suggests, an attack designed to pre-empt an enemy's attack. It's a case of "if you're gonna' hit me, I'm gonna' hit you first." In none of these cited cases did the US launch an attack because it feared an attack was imminent. Indeed, I cannot think of a single instance in American history, prior to 2003, when the US launched a pre-emptive attack.

Now let me emphasize I'm not justifying the interventions cited here; I'm just saying they're not instances of pre-emptive attacks.

Joe.

I thought Tampico was preemptive. Didn't Washington attack because he thought the French were about to attack him?

In 1914? I'm not sure what event you're thinking of, but it can't be the Tampico incident.

<brainfart>

Don't mind me, I was thinking about something else entirely. The post was meant to be a bookmark more'n anything.

As for the question, I think preemptive strikes are justified if you are under imminent threat. ie Enemy troops massed on your borders, that sort of thing. If the war is definitely coming then it's not so much a preemption as it is gaining the initiative.

For those of you folks who don't recall...
Hitler's 1938 invasion of Poland was touted as "Pre-emptive".
Der Fuhrer and his henchmen had contrived their flimsy justification for the attack (Poland was an "imminent threat" with their Cavalry on horseback armed with lances? I think NOT!)... England dared to object and protest.

Anyone that ATTACKS is the ASSAILANT.

PERIOD.

All the rhetoric, sophistry and rationalization gymnastics in the world can't change that fact.

The HONORABLE thing to do is to suffer the first blow... and THEN to RESPOND.

"Self-defense" is not a valid justification for violence unless one is acting IN RESPONSE.

What if you have good reason to believe that the first blow will destroy you? Honor is no good to a dead man Magus.

If you KNOW the attack is coming, you are justified in striking first.
The devil is in the knowing...

The Devil is in the LIE.

"Death before Dishonor" used to MEAN something.

A couple of points: (1) Germany attacked Poland in 1939, not 1938; (2) even Hitler didn't claim that the attack on Poland was pre-emptive -- instead, he claimed that Poland had attacked Germany first; (3) I call Godwin.

Ah, the Godwin factor . . . i've always found that when i want to start a war, nothing beats killing several of my more annoying officers, and dressing them up in the uniforms of my enemy's border patrol . . . and away we go ! ! !

Joe, I plead the folly and foggy recollection of the insomniac.(;-) )

The Invasion was, indeed, in 1939, on Sept. 1... roughly a week after he had signed the "Non-Aggression" Pact with the Soviet Union.
(There's a little irony THERE>>>)
Hitler's invasion of Poland came without formal Declaration of War.
Hitler's Propaganda machine had manufactured evidence... of uniformed polish casualties who, he claimed, were polish troops who had crossed the border near the Polish town of Gliwice.

Yes, even Hitler didn't blatantly use the claim of Pre-emption... it was more of an IMPLIED claim.
Apparently the invading German troops killed some border guards in Poland and then transported the casualties across the border to be photographed on German soil.

So, the "pre-emptive" attack was actually publically touted as "retaliatory".

The fact remains that Poland did NOT attack Germany, and that LIES were used to "justify" the invasion and occupation to the Public.

"Disinformation" and untruth to justify hostility and aggression... THAT much is not debatable.

This is degenerated into simply a ramble through "unjust" wars. I provided an example at the beginning of this thread, in the person of Friederich von Hohenzollern. He launched a pre-emptive war in 1740, the First Silesian War. His rationale was that he was acting in the interest of the People, and that Austria was illegally in possession of Silesia. He had a good legal case, and his military case was that without pre-emption, the small forces of Prussia could never carry the war to the enemy. He used a similar justification for the Second Silesian War in 1744, this time carrying the fight into Bohemia, and thereby clearing Silesia.

In 1777, when the successor to the now defunct Wittelsbach line of Bavaria ceded lower Bavaria to the Hapsburgs, Friederich built a coalition of other German states in the Empire, and convinced Saxony to take an active part with him. In 1778, he invaded Bohemia in the War of the Bavarian Succession, to curtail the threat of overweening Austrian power.

In none of these cases, however, did Friederich allege a proximate threat to his nation. The one time this was true, the Seven Years War, he badly misread the signals, and the Austrians caught him flatfooted.

Howzabout we discuss pre-emptive war and its implications?

"HE STARTED IT!" is a premise familiar to all who did not spend their childhood in isolation...

Neither of those wars was an instance of pre-emption, because in neither case did Frederick have any cause to fear an Austrian attack. In both cases Austria was quite preoccupied with other matters to be launching attacks on Prussia. Indeed, in 1740 Prussia was bound, by treaty, to assist Austria. Frederick's invasion of Silesia was a simple, straightforward attack -- nothing pre-emptive about it. And as for his "good legal case" for taking Silesia, I'll just assume that you were speaking ironically.


Again, not a case of pre-emption. Prussia did not attack because it feared an attack by Austria, it attacked because it didn't like the proposed Austrian deal to acquire part of Bavaria. The course of the war, where the Austrians adopted a defensive posture throughout, is, I think, compelling evidence that Austria did not intend to attack Prussia.


Actually, this is the only case where Frederick did launch a pre-emptive strike. His invasion of Saxony in 1756 is a paradigmatic example of a pre-emptive war. Far from the Austrians catching Frederick flatfooted, Frederick successfully invaded Saxony, captured Dresden, and effectively eliminated the Saxon army before the Austrians could mount a response.

In principle, it's impossible to draw any clear line. In practice, the only specific example I can think of is Israel in the run-up to the six-day war. When Israel attacked, the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were mobilized, on their way to the Israeli border, and outnumbering the Israelis by far (if I am correctly informed). In this situation, no reasonable person could demand that Israel wait until the best moment for her enemies to attack.

I used these examples, because Frederick considered them examples of the case he had outlined in The Antimachiavel, or at any event, said as much in his correspondence to Prince Henry.

As for his good legal case, Silesia became a "vacant" duchy with the death of the Duke at Leignitz in 1241. The ducal line continued, but the Hohenzollern leaders of the Tuetonic knights received recognition from the Polish monarchy as the overlords of Prussian and Silesia--"Prussia" (not at all what we conceive of today) was then a feif in the gift of the Polish throne.

In 1415, Sigismund, the elected King of Bohemia, and the last of the Luxembourg "German" emperors (he was elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1433), was implicated in the "murder" of Jan Hus at Konstanz. Whether or not this was justified, he now had a war on his hands, the Hussite Wars. These wars spilled over the Czech borders, and Sigismund promised the Hohenzollerns that the counties of the now allegedly defunct Upper and Lower Silesian duchies would be in the gift of that house, were the Hohenzollerns to support his war efforts. It was at this time, 1415, that the first Freiderich von Hohenzollern was made the first margrave of Brandenburg. Freiderich kept his side of the bargain, marching directly to the aid of Sigismund.

The question was held in abeyance (despite the protests of the descendants of Henry II and the collateral line of Silesian "Dukes"), and during the Thirty Years War, the Emperor Ferdinand's Imperial forces occupied Silesia in response to the landing of Gustavus Adolphus in northern Germany. Georg Wilhelm, the feeblest of the Hohenzollern line, protested feebly, and then, rather than actually raise an army and choose sides, retired to Königsberg in 1637, dying there in 1640. Freiderich II was very critical of Georg in his history of the House of Brandenburg. The Great Elector protested the de facto cession of Silesia to the Habsburgs, and his son, who became the first King of Prussia, privately claimed to have been coerced into accepting this de facto cession of Silesia--that, at any event, is Freiderich's narrative in his history of his house.

Within the terms of the "constitution" of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the Duchies of Silesia were in the gift of the Emperor, but, Sigismund having transferred that "gift" to the Hohenzollern's, no further claim could be made based upon holding the Imperial title. The Habsburg's were not HRE's at the time of that cession, and Freiderich's claim was that the Habsburg's had no rights in the matter of Silesia, other than the right of conquest, which he claims they acknowledged to be temporary in correspondence with his ancestor Georg Wilhelm.

I believe that Freiderich considered his Silesian Wars to have been pre-emptive. I also will state that Freiderich felt that the Austrians caught him flat-footed, diplomatically at least, in having concluded alliances with France and Russia before Freiderich was aware of the negotiations. His attack on Saxony was pre-emptive, certainly, but it did not prevent Austria from invading his territory in Silesia, and it did not prevent the Russians from invading Prussia. Later, both Austrian and Russian forces operated in Brandenburg, and the Russians took Berlin briefly. From Freiderich's point of view, he had done very badly in the run-up to the war. After Zorndorf, he in fact considered retiring from the conduct of the war, and turning command of the army over to Prince Henry.

I admit that it has been almost 40 years since i read Freiderich's books, but i believe i have correctly stated his view on these subjects. I recommend them to those who do not find historical documents of this type too dull. The four i have read are The Antimachiavel, The History of the House of Brandenburg, The First Political Testament and The Second Political Testament. They were written in French, but i read them in English translation.

And i have forgotten to add the critical reason for Freiderich considering his two Silesian Wars to have been pre-emptive--he did not declare war before moving with his army.