Great article by Robert Creamer. This is the tone of conversation

[wiggs]

that the public and PE Obama could adopt...that the Iraq disaster and the economic disaster and others are direct evidence of failed Bush policy that we need to repudiate going forward. The exact objections to the idea pre-emptive war have proven to be correct and on target and we can see the consequences every day and will be paying the price for a generation. The connection has to be made so that Obama can distance himself from the Bush Doctrine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/the-one-big-thing-george_b_158092.html

(I know..... Bush proposed a "pre-emptive" doctrine but pursued an illegal "preventive" policy. This difference can't be discussed enough)

[ThomWV]

1. Please discuss your understanding of the difference between Pre-emptive and Preventive

Seriously, I'm interested. I don't see a distinction but I've never given it any thought and it rings a bell with a similar argument I have been having with myself for about a year now - the freedon vs. liberty question.

[ThomWV]

2. PS: Thanks for the link, I enjoyed the article.

[wiggs]

3. Without researching official and technical language, my understanding is

that pre-emptive attack is legal and refers to action taken when the other side clearly is about to undertake an offensive action...massing at the borders, readying missles, etc.. The danger must be imminent and your own action is considered defensive.

On the other hand, "preventive war" is ILLEGAL and refers to military action taken to prevent a hypothetical danger sometime in the future.

This is why the UN and congress emphasized and insisted that our action had to be preceded by a finding of IMMINENT danger and why the administration tried so hard to foist that mis-information on us (mis-informing congress in private meetings, routing misinformation about unmanned drones carrying WMD through Britain, drawing frickin CARTOONS of mobile labs, etc). Read Dean's Worse than Watergate regarding the sham of findings that the administration provided AND CONGRESS ACCEPTED prior to the war.

However, there was no imminent danger and this was apparent at the time to most. At the very least it was apparent that the claim of imminent danger was questionable.

So the B*sh administration came up with the B*sh Doctrine (pre-emptive war) and then did something else that was illegal (preventive war). But let's not forget that there are serious flaws with legal pre-emptive war too. Aside from the fact that an immoral administration can twist words and misuse their war powers, pre-emptive war (even by well-meaning leaders) depends on near-perfect intelligence findings. And since there's almost never perfect intelligence, the policy is highly questionable. And nothing should be questionable when it comes to decisions of war, horrific destruction, millions of lives lost or uprooted, and the potential to alienate and foment hate in millions more. Ridiculous that an administration would go down this path and even more outrageous that congress, the press, and the public would let it happen.

I remember at the time that people were worried about our use of pre-emptive/preventive war, writing about how it gave India a justification to attack Pakistan, Israel justification to attack its neighbors, us more justification to attack Venezuela (this was a hot issue for a while), China justification to attack Taiwan. Another reason to question the whole idea.

More than you asked for...but I'm hyped up watching a criminal administration wiggle out of accountability these days.