Preemption has become a dirty word. But this need not and should not be so. I bring this up because the Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review has drawn the Bush administration’s so-called “preemption” doctrine into the news again.
The only problem is the Bush administration’s preemption doctrine was not a preemption doctrine. Just ask the Department of Defense Dictionary, which defines a preemptive attack as “an attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.” Such an attack is legal, as it conforms to the Caroline dictum, which establishes criteria for the legitimate use of anticipatory self-defense. The Caroline dictum was first articulated by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1841. Webster, writing to Lord Ashburton of Britain about the 1837 British attack on the U.S. ship the Caroline, asserted that self-defense is legitimate if the “necessity of self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” and if the force employed is not “unreasonable or excessive.” Thus, preemption had been official U.S. policy since at least 1841.
The Bush Doctrine altered the long-standing U.S. preemption policy. As the famous 2002 National Security Strategy argues:
The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
Once again, turn to the Department of Defense dictionary for the appropriate term and you will find preventive war defined as “a war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.” The Bush Doctrine was prevention, not preemption. Dubbing the Bush Doctrine “preemption” blurs the very significant distinction between the two, creating immense confusion. The distinction is especially relevant when discussing nuclear attacks, and the American public would benefit from more precise terminology from the press.
