Pre-emption is effective tool
By Danielle Pletka
The concept of pre-emption, hitting an enemy before he hits you, has been integral to U.S. foreign policy for four decades. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, President Kennedy said: "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."
Since President Bush restated in 2002 that one weapon in the U.S. arsenal would be to hit America's enemies before they hit us, there has been a bizarre outbreak of handwringing in foreign-policy circles. What should be an obvious approach — arresting an enemy before he takes American lives — has become a "radical" idea.
Those same handwringers have lighted upon former Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's pronouncement that the intelligence on Iraq was wrong to reiterate their objections to a doctrine of pre-emption. Given that pre-emptive action would be intelligence based, and U.S. intelligence is obviously flawed, they argue, pre-emption should be tossed by the wayside.
Rather, the contrary is true.
U.S. (along with British, French and German) intelligence on Iraq was indeed flawed, a product of false analyses and deliberate deception on the part of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Where it was wrong, the intelligence community should be held accountable. Intelligence reform is an obvious imperative in the aftermath of the Iraq war and the many intelligence failures that preceded it. However, much of what informed that intelligence was undeniable.
Iraq did have a robust weapons program until the early 1990s; Saddam had used chemical weapons; he was in clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding that he reveal all physical and documentary evidence of banned weapons programs. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that despite having ratcheted back the programs, Saddam wanted the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why? Because he believed they would protect him.
The conventional wisdom is that WMD and the means to deliver them are desirable tools against one's enemies. The rogues of the world are seeking or have developed WMD. Al-Qaeda has made clear repeatedly that it hopes to acquire and use WMD. These hateful regimes also firmly believe that possessing WMD would deter attacks from the United States and others. Iraq should have taught them that the reverse is true.
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi figured out that having WMD posed a greater danger to him than not having them. Bush's national security doctrine and the threat of pre-emption it contains are warnings to dictators and terrorists: WMD will not protect you. They could make you an intolerable risk to the international community. Think twice and avail yourself of diplomatic and political options while you have a chance.
Danielle Pletka is vice president of foreign- and defense-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
usatoday.com |
