12th June 2003

Pre-Emptive War and Iraq

by Matthew Riemer -- Source: www.pinr.com

Credibility and Pre-Emptive War Doctrine

With the invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the United States has introduced the world to the doctrine and practice of preemptive war: when one country attacks another due to that other country's latent power or likelihood of doing the attacking country harm. Preemptive war must have a definitive and compelling reason to warrant this kind of military intercourse; moreover, this reason must be universal enough to garner global sympathy.

Since the public discourse on preemption with regard to Iraq began well over a year ago, Washington and London's official reason advanced not only to the American and British people, but to the governments and residents of the world, was that of weapons of mass destruction (WMD); other less politically significant but generally accepted reasons were also featured, such as Saddam's crimes against humanity, but WMD remained the cornerstone on which the case was built. It was a favorite topic of both U.S. President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, as well as most of their subordinates. And though, before the U.S.' preemptive invasion of Iraq even began, people around the world had gathered in unprecedented numbers to protest such an action, many others felt this reason convincing.

The existence of WMD was the point of greatest contention during the pre-war debate and -- even though the war has come and gone -- has remained so. The focus in both cases, however, is not necessarily WMD but the intelligence and information that led London and Washington to apparently believe, and then pass that conviction onto the general public, that WMD existed in dangerous quantities in Iraq and represented an imminent danger to global security. It is this data presented by the Bush and Blair governments that has been and is continuing to be challenged, refuted, and even proved fraudulent.

In an address to the United Nations, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented forged documents as key evidence while making the United States' defining statement for preemptive war in Iraq. Parts of a British dossier, highly touted by Tony Blair, were fraudulent and taken from a California college student's research. The U.S. also allegedly possessed information describing hundreds of WMD sites in Iraq, detailing kinds and quantities of chemicals stored there. But now that the main fighting in the war has concluded and the U.S. is ostensibly controlling Iraq, no traces of WMD have been discovered anywhere in the country for several weeks.

The groundswell of controversy caused by this most awkward of situations for Washington and London has now resulted in inquiries and much clamor in both capitals.

In England, Tony Blair has been coming under increased pressure as accusations of doctored intelligence and exaggerated information are creating headlines. There are now two separate investigations underway into the matter; one of these focused on a document claiming that Iraq could launch an attack in 45 minutes, which Blair then famously cited. In the United States, the CIA will now give lawmakers the information used by Colin Powell in his United Nations address containing the bogus intelligence about shipments of uranium from Africa.

The evolution of this situation will prove most important for the history of preemptive war as it illustrates one of the inherent flaws of decisions based entirely upon intelligence data. The fact that intelligence used to support preemptive action in Iraq is, in fact, a finite amount of data from a significantly larger pool, combined with the number of different sources of information -- ranging from the CIA to the Pentagon to foreign intelligence agencies -- it is highly doubtful, critics say, that no manipulation or even favorable presentation ever takes place. And this is the very criticism now being laid on Washington's doorstep by an array of critics who are increasingly finding a voice in the mainstream media in the U.S.

This controversy has now given rise to the question: Can preemptive war be legitimately waged knowing that the data on which the preemptive element relies could be completely inaccurate?

If the WMD issue becomes scandalous and represents a large percentage of headlines for weeks, the chances of either Washington or London being able to convince the world that another country -- such as Iran, Syria, or even North Korea -- is an imminent threat are low. In the long run, this situation may lead to a significant loss of credibility for not only George Bush and Tony Blair as leading international statesmen but for their respective countries as well.

The Bush and Blair governments may have weakened their positions by forcing the invasion of Iraq. Barring some massive discovery revealing large stockpiles of WMD, the global forces opposed to the imperialist nature of the U.S./U.K. invasion of Iraq, will only be strengthened by this contentious atmosphere that even has those who typically support government policy crying foul about the unfolding WMD/cooked intelligence drama. This could lead to grave political fall-outs for both leaders.

A nightmare situation for the U.S. would be a continuing lack of WMD along with an increasingly unstable and unresolved Iraq. Not only would this put undue strains on a U.S. possibly in the position of striking another country, but it would also provide an example of what happens when the U.S. induces "regime change." Such a situation may very well lead to a strategic advantage and diplomatic edge for countries such as Iran when dealing with U.S. advances. U.S. threats will ring more hollow when backed by the faltering example of a festering Iraq. This is the last thing Washington wants on the world geopolitical stage as it goes ahead with its policy of active engagement in the Middle East.