Reprint: The difference between Pre-emptive vs. Preventive war

[I will be away from any computers this week; in the interim I'm republishing some of the more popular posts from the recent past. This one is from June 11, 2003 and is just as relevant now than ever -- perhaps more so.]

The difference between Pre-emptive vs. Preventive war

Let's make an important distinction between pre-emptive war and preventive war.

Pre-emptive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy that represents an imminent threat of attack. The Six-Day War was a pre-emptive war.

Preventive war is what happens when a state targets an enemy before they can become an imminent threat of attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor was a preventive war.

Here's why this is important:

The war against Iraq was justified primarily as a pre-emptive war. But now the WMD are nowhere to be found.

Am I glad that Saddam is gone? Absolutely. I was in favor of regime change before, during, and after the war. It was enough for me that he had links to that thug Arafat's terror organization. After all, the Bush Doctrine is clear: if you support terrorists, you are a terrorist.

Had POTUS sold it in those terms, I think the American public would have bought it.

But if it turns out that the intel on WMD was cooked, or if it turns out that top-level administration officials lied, or if it turns out that POTUS wanted a preventive war along, but knew we wouldn't buy it, then I fear we've lost more than we gained.