I propose a basic question. Does the nation’s “preemptive strike” policy cast the United States counter terrorist activity in the same light as the international terrorist organization that caused us to adopt that policy. First, I must state that my own position is biased, as I am dogmatically opposed to the idea of the preemptive strike. Second, let me point out that the “preemptive strike” is not George W. Bush’s policy alone. Rather it is a generally accepted strategy among neoconservatives and counter terrorist organizations such as the Institute for Counter Terrorism(ICT) in Herzlia, Israel. In 2003, Shabtai Shavit, chairman of the ICT presented the preemptive strike as part of a comprehensive policy against international terrorist activity . “III. Fighting terrorism–strategy. 1. Right to self-defense justifies a pre-emptive strike.”*1 As such, the notion of the preemptive strike has justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States, and Lebanon by Israel, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of civilian men, women, and children. It will no doubt be used to defend future invasions of foreign nations by the United States, and/or Israel. Of course, the defenders of the policy, including George W. Bush, will state that it is the government’s responsibility (any government) to protect its citizens and defend its territory. They will also say that the threat to civilians empowers them to preemptively invade a foreign nation when that nation supports, harbors, and/or aids terrorists. On the surface, that sounds justified, though the logic is based on the notion that the end justifies the means. Less subtly stated, routing out international terrorists justifies killing the innocent citizens of a foreign nation. In actual practice, however, the war in Iraq has demonstrated that any government can make mistakes, and invade a nation that has no connection with international terrorists. I will not consider the WMD defense of the war here as that has proven to be totally inaccurate, perhaps disingenuous. However, it is necessary to reflect on ethics when looking at this issue. Is the idea of the preemptive strike ethically sound?

One ethical expert (Michael Walzer) has put forward some conditions that he thinks must be satisfied to justify a pre-emptive strike:

* an obvious intention to do injury
* active preparations that turn that intention into a positive danger
* a situation in which the risk of defeat will be greatly increased if the fight is delayed

*2

Is the preemptive war in Iraq justified by any/all of these three? First, Did Saddam
Hussain - admittedly a destructive dictator who killed his own countrymen and members of his own family – threaten to do physical injury to the United States and / or its citizens? Second, was Iraq preparing for a war with the United States? Reports by both the UNGA in 2001-02, and the United States in 2004 have shown that not to be the case. Finally, would the United States have risked defeat by delaying the invasion of Iraq? The same reports prepared by the UNGA and the United States government demonstrate that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that Iraq was not working to create these.

Before the war, many Christian organizations and church leaders denounced a preemptive invasion of Iraq on religious ethical grounds.

This week, Kofi Annan of the UN said there should be no such attack without a UN Security Council okay. And more religious voices agreed, among them 48 prominent U.S. Christian leaders, the top foreign affairs official at the Vatican, the Jesuit magazine AMERICA, and the Council on American Islamic Relations. Also, the top staff person of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodists, President Bush's denomination. General Secretary Jim Winkler said he considers it "inconceivable that Jesus Christ ... would support this proposed attack."

*3

On the same program, Professor Shaun Casey, Professor of Religious Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary stated

One, you don't want to normalize the notion of preemptive war -- defensive war is allowed. Secondly, war must be a last resort. You must try and exhaust all peaceful alternatives to war -- we haven't done that. Finally, there's the criteria of proportionality -- that the good you want to achieve has to outweigh the evil that you might incur in the process.

*3

In his April 27, 2006 position and policy statement for the United Nations General Assembly, Kofi Annan makes the following statement.

Past cases show that Governments that resort to excessive use of force and indiscriminate repression when countering terrorism risk strengthening the support
base for terrorists among the general population. Such measures generally invite
counter-violence, undermine the legitimacy of counter-terrorism measures and play
into the hands of terrorists. I therefore call on Governments to avoid excessive use
of force and to comply with international human rights law.

*4

Though carefully couched so as to sound as though the UNGA is referencing domestic terrorism, Annon’s statement is certainly a cautiously worded rebuke of Western preemptive strikes.

As I stated at the beginning of this entry, I am and have been from the beginning dogmatically opposed to the notion of the preemptive strike, and the war in Iraq. The attempt here is to support and defend my position with ethical and religious ethical thought. I have done so. Based on that defense, I know that at some point in time, it becomes necessary for The United States of America to admit an error of judgment, and institute a policy of restitution to the people of Iraq. Perhaps that will not be possible for many years for two reasons. First, because of the internal civil strife (civil war) that has been ignited by our invasion. Second, because the current government of the United States and many of our citizens are incapable of admitting to such an ethical or ethical religious error. Nevertheless, it must be done, if we are ever to say proudly, once again, “We are the champions of Democracy, rather than, we are the champions of destruction and terror.”


*1 Shavit, Shabtai, “Defeating International Terrorism: Trends, scenarios, and future threats.” Institute for Counter Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/. Viewed Sunday, August 20, 2006, 9:21 AM EDT.

*2 “The Ethics of War,” Religion & Ethics, The BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/print//religion/ethics/war/preemptive.shtml. Viewed Friday, September 1, 2006.

*3 Bob Abernathy, “Episode no. 602, Religious Views on War with Iraq.” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: an on line companion to the weekly televison news program, Perspectives, On PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/perspectives.html, September 13, 2002, viewed 9:55 AM EDT. September 2, 2006.

*4 Annan, Kofi, Uniting Against Terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy. Report of the Secretary-General, Sixtieth Session, Agenda Items 46 and 120. United Nations General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ (April 27, 2006) viewed August 15, 2006, 9:02 AM EDT.