WSJ columnist Dan Henninger argues that we need 21st century rules for 21st century war but are applying 20th century rules such as the Geneva Convention model instead. He notes a recent speech given by UK Defense Minister John Reid, which triggered strong opposition from the Left. Here is the text of Reid's April 5 speech DH referenced; on April 3 Reid gave a more detailed view re international law issues in this text.
Henry Kissinger argues that Westphalian pre-emption rules have been rendered obsolete by technology enabling small groups to attack with WMD, but that some set of rules that make American pre-emption a rarity must be adopted by the international community; at minimum, a great power concord is achievable given the common danger from certain rogue regimes. HK writes: "The Westphalian system sought security based upon the sanctity of international borders. In our time, the power, range and speed of modern weapons have made this definition too narrow." Yet there is an inescapable dilemma confronting advocates of pre-emption: "Preemptive strategy is based on assumptions that cannot be proved when they are made. When the scope for action is greatest, knowledge is at a minimum. When knowledge has been acquired, the scope for preemption has often disappeared."
A fine book-length treatment of the issues is Harvard law prof and showboat controversialist Alan Dershowitz's Preemption (2006). Dershowitz, a thinker of quality despite his flamboyance and outsize ego, offers a wide-ranging history of pre-emption, not only in international contexts but also in the domestic criminal context. You learn that the justice of the peace we all associate with marriages by the roadside originated as an official with power to detain those suspected of plotting mayhem. AD examines Israel's 1967, 1973 and 1982 wars in detail, and assesses Iraq II & Iran. He distinguishes between "pre-emption" in the face of an apparent imminent attack, and "preventive" war to end a threat before it might become imminent. Israel's 1967 war exemplifies the former; Iraq II exemplifies the latter. Where Dershowitz goes astray is in proposing a jurisprudence of pre-emption: AD assumes that lawyers will be realistic and that biases will cancel out; the sad reality is that the international legal bar is overwhelmingly anti-US, anti-Israel and would hardly produce a reasonable code. Still, his book merits study.
Iraq II's aftermath has severely damaged American prestige, with consequent loss of success as a lever to press for pre-emptive action against Iran. Forgotten are: (1) the six months the US spent at the UN before Iraq II: (2) unanimous Security Council passage of Resolution 1441 in November 2002, calling upon Saddam to disarm forthwith or prove absence of WMD, without any chicanery; (3) Saddam's jerking around Hans Blix's inspectors in January 2003; (4) Colin Powell's compelling presentation to the Security Council in February 2003, featuring transcripts of intercepted conversations between Iraqi officials showing clear intent to evade; (5) France's announcement, on the cusp of a Security Council vote on an 18th UN resolution re Iraq and days before Iraq II began, that it would use its permanent member veto to block approval if necessary; and (6) France & Germany leaning on Turkey--threatening permanent exclusion from the EU--if Turkey allowed American military units in or use of its bases for the war. The failure of the US in Iraq to stabilize security and midwife a moderate regime makes such amnesia easier, but it remains convenient historical revisionism.
Which leaves Iran on the tee. The US is pursuing diplomacy not because any senior official in this Administration believes such will stop Iran's murderous mad mullahs, but to reduce the political cost of an eventual military action upon its evident final failure. There appears little prospect of a mass uprising before Iran "goes critical" and becomes a nuclear power with attendant immunity from attack, and consequent license to wreak havoc in the Mideast and elsewhere. (Would the US strike nuclear Iranian's soil after a Hezbollah suicide bomber walks into a suburban shopping Mall?) Our best hope for a non-messy outcome: a massive series of earthquakes that destroy key Iranian nuclear facilities, which have been deployed at sites not ideally geologically stable. Alas, we may have exhausted our divine allotment of miracles for the Boomer generation.
Comments