Democrats Endorse Preemption

by Robert J. Romano

August 1st, 2004

*Updated August 8th, 2004

Sort of.  While previously speaking out against the shortcomings of preemption, the Democrats are now endorsing it.  On January 23rd, 2003 Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, said in a speech, "This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might." And in the 2004 Democratic National Platform it states, "There is no greater threat to American security than the possibility of terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction.  Preventing terrorists from gaining access to these weapons must be our number one security goal... First, the world should be on notice that we will take every possible measure to defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms.  If such an attack appears imminent, we will do everything necessary to stop it..." (6) - which is [one]* justification for preemption, [a war against a present danger.]*  Since the time of Senator Kerry's 2003 speech, the United States has introduced the Proliferation Security Initiative, which preventively addresses the issue of weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and has many participants, including Russia.  However, you would not know about that, reading the 2004 Democratic National Platform, which states, "We must build and lead an international consensus for early preventive action to lock up and secure existing weapons of mass destruction and the material to manufacture more..." (6) - as if such steps were not being taken.

        While the platform promises that if "such an strike does occur, we will respond with overwhelming and devastating force..." (6) it also conditions preemptive military action only if "such an attack appears imminent..." (6) This is not the prudent nor correct message to send to our adversaries at this critical moment in history.  After 9/11/01, the justification for preemptive military action necessarily changed.  We must not wait for an attack to be imminent in order to justify or authorize military force.  I have previously elaborated on the The National Security Strategy of the United States, President Bush's document from September, 2002, which speaks of many of the shortcomings of waiting for an imminent danger before being compelled to action.  "We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries." (15) Because the classic concept of imminent danger has most often been applied to the visible threat of invasion, it is ill-advised for the United States to wait for visible signs of the danger of a WMD terror attack before engaging in preemption.  Such signals may not be available, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt will not be available until after an attack has already taken place.  "Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat - most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack." (15) As I stated in "Adapting the Concept of Imminent Threat", since terrorist attacks are carried out unconventionally using covert means, visible signals may not always (if at all) be available, and as such it is insufficient to await such intelligence to be available to justify taking action.  

        Rather, Strategy offers a different prescription.   "Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness.  The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action." (15) The present and immediate danger of state sponsors of terrorism is undeniable, and when these states pursue WMD, and WMD programs and technologies, the world becomes rightly concerned and seeks to confront the danger preemptively.  It should be noted that preemption may take the form of military action, but this is the last resort.  Preemptive and preventive diplomacy, organizing a coalition of the willing, potentially enacting economic sanctions against state sponsors of terrorism, cutting off terror finances, and other methods of achieving compliance of international obligations as annunciated in UN Security Council Resolution 1373 or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, for instance (and to name a couple), are justified as well, and military action must always and only be a last resort.  

        While Democrats have last week consistently stated that we should never go to war because we want to, but only because we have to, they criticize the necessity of taking preemptive action against Iraq, which was a state sponsor of terrorism that had pursued and previously used WMD, and was in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.  Further, they consistently refer to the case of Hussein's Iraq as a different war from the war on terrorism, claiming it to be a distraction from the war against al Qaeda.  This ignores the past and present danger of terrorism inside Iraq, 

        These fallacious criticisms are rightly denounced, as the war against terror targets all terror enemies, not only al Qaeda.  The 9/11 Commission Report Executive Summary states, "Since 9/11, the United States and its allies have killed or captured a majority of al Qaeda’s leadership; toppled the Taliban, which gave al Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan; and severely damaged the organization.  Yet terrorist attacks continue. Even as we have thwarted attacks, nearly everyone expects they will come. How can this be? ... The problem is that al Qaeda represents an ideological movement, not a finite group of people.  It initiates and inspires, even if it no longer directs.  In this way it has transformed itself into a decentralized force.  Bin Ladin may be limited in his ability to organize major attacks from his hideouts.  Yet killing or capturing him, while extremely important, would not end terror.  His message of inspiration to a new generation of terrorists would continue..." (16) The 9/11 Commission accurately describes terrorism to be a transnational danger, and this truly is a global war on terrorism, as recent attacks around the world have tragically demonstrated.  Merely going after the terrorists we know were responsible for the attacks of 9/11 will not remove and eliminate the terror enemy.  After the attacks of 2001, America necessarily put itself on a war footing against the dangers of all transnational terrorism.

        And so, do not believe critics who claim to support preemption against imminent dangers and who claim that we should wait to confront emerging dangers like Hussein's Iraq.  In other words, just because Hussein's regime was not responsible for the attacks of 9/11 does not mean that Iraq had not been a state sponsor of terrorism in the past, had not used and pursued WMD, and had not violated her international treaty obligations by failing to account for her WMD.  In the post-9/11 context, a danger such as Hussein's regime had to be confronted preemptively, or immediately.  There will be more such dangers to confront and defeat in the future, and we must keep in context the attacks we have suffered as we strengthen our resolve to prevent future attacks by preemptively removing present dangers.  States who share the characteristic of being on the state sponsors of terrorism list must take corrective actions to come into compliance with their international obligations, and should want to get off that list, and will only be able to do so by taking such actions.  They must choose civilization over chaos.