Chris > the doctrine of preemption has fallen on hard times. Far from demonstrating the principle's effectiveness, the Iraq war and its aftermath have ultimately underscored its limits
In my opinion, the Iraq war was not a war, certainly not in the accepted sense, for the simple reason that Iraq was not "at war" with the US.
Indeed, after the initial blitzkrieg, which was over in a few days and which met limited resistance, many/most Iraqis apparently looked forward to the removal of Saddam and his regime. As we know, the professed reason for the invasion was that Saddam was a threat to world peace on account of his WMDs.
That was until the REAL reason for the war became manifest -- which was good, old-fashioned colonization and the theft of a country for its assets -- just like Britain, and other European nations, did in the 18th and 19th Century all over the world.
Indeed, there were no WMDs. The reason given for the "war" was a lie. In fact, it was a war crime -- and Bush, Blair & Co are war criminals.
So, therefore, its quite incorrect to talk about "pre-emptive war" when, in fact, nothing was being pre-empted. No attack was being planned on the US or anywhere else by anyone and certainly not by a nation which had been impoverished by ten years of sanctions. |
