Military

DATE=February 26, 2003

TYPE=Dateline

TITLE=The Bush Preemption Doctrine: The Case of Iraq

BYLINE=Carol Castiel

NUMBER=7-37220

TELEPHONE=(202) 619-1101

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Neal Lavon

CONTENT=

DISK: DATELINE THEME [PLAYED IN STUDIO, FADED UNDER DATELINE HOST VOICE OR PROGRAMMING MATERIAL]

HOST: Britain and the United States submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council this week. The proposal says Iraq will face serious consequences if it does not obey U-N orders to peacefully disarm. Given Iraq's repeated defiance of Security Council resolutions, Bush Administration officials are seeking U-N backing to disarm Iraq by force if necessary. But the administration is on record as saying U-N approval may not be needed to protect U-S

Security. More now from VOA's Carol Castiel on this edition of Dateline.

TAPE: CUT 1 BUSH :26

"Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies. We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best....If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (APPLAUSE FADE)"

CC: In a speech to West Point graduates last June, President Bush argued that the concepts of deterrence and containment, which have guided U-S foreign policy for most of the last century, may be insufficient to counter the threats of the post-September 11th world. The president said new threats require new thinking.

TAPE: CUT 2 BUSH :25

"The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (APPLAUSE.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (FADE APPLAUSE.)"

CC: In a controversial document published last year, the Bush administration advocated the preemptive use of military force against terrorists, or state sponsors of terrorism, who attempt to gain or use weapons of mass destruction.

The doctrine of preemption justifies the use of force against such emerging threats BEFORE they are fully formed. President Bush reiterated the need for such a policy option in his annual State of the Union Address to Congress in January--this time linking it to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

TAPE: CUT 3, BUSH :35

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy and it is not an option. (FADE APPLAUSE)"

CC: Robert Lieber, Professor of Government and Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington, says reserving the right to take pre-emptive action is not a dramatic departure from previous American foreign policy.

He says the document, known as the National Security Strategy, makes explicit what has been largely implicit for some time in American foreign policy.

TAPE: CUT 4 LIEBER :20

"The National Security Strategy document is both novel in the sense that it responds to a post-September 11th world and at the same time it's consistent and evolves from things that have been more or less implicit in American policy for many years even going back to World Wars I and II."

CC: Professor Lieber goes on to say that the doctrine of preemption is a rational and appropriate response to a world of very new and dangerous threats.

TAPE: CUT 5, LIEBER :31

"Specifically, after September 11th, we now know that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction create an entirely new and much more lethal threat environment for the United States. And any policymaker, whether a Democratic or Republican president, is going to need to take that into account. We don't want to be in a situation of waiting for a nuclear Pearl Harbor or a mass casualty attack with weapons of mass destruction that may kill not three thousand people but many times that number."

CC: Despite the September 11th terror attacks, Robert Dallek, Professor of History at Boston University, sees the Bush preemption doctrine as a worrisome break from tradition.

TAPE: CUT 6, DALEK :44

"It's a pretty substantial departure from traditional American national security policy making. This is what I would describe as prevention rather than preemption. And the distinction is important. Preemption is when you feel menaced, threatened by imminent attack or a threat. Prevention is a much more speculative and uncertain doctrine than preemption is. And what this administration has been doing especially with Iraq is pushing for a policy of preventive warfare. There is no clear, immediate threat from Saddam Hussein, and in fact, it is my supposition that he's been contained for the last 10 years. No one holds a brief for him, but there is the feeling that you can contain him."

CC: But Robert Lieber argues that Saddam Hussein has not been "contained" by interational inspections. Professor Lieber says Saddam has consistently refused to comply with Security Council resolutions requiring him to disarm, so it is now time for military action.

TAPE: CUT 7, LIEBER :40

"The danger is that Iraq, with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs which are enormous and which are continuing, has the aim of dominating the region. This is a tyrant who has launched missiles at four of his neighbors and who, if he acquires a nuclear device, may try to use it to dominate the region, and deter the United States or other countries from acting. Or who could, if he chose, hand off either that or other kinds of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups in ways that might obscure the origin of the weapon. So, going after Saddam, disarming him forcefully, makes good sense."

CC: The United States and Britain are attempting to obtain U-N Security Council backing for the use of force against Iraq. Both nations have introduced a draft resolution that says Iraq has missed its last chance to disarm and must now face "serious consequences," a euphemism for war.

But the Council is deeply divided between those who back military action and those who prefer to extend the weapons inspection process agreed to last November. Therefore, the United States may decide to use military force in along with what White House officials have called "a coalition of the willing." If so, analysts say that Iraq will represent the first test of the Bush preemption doctrine.

Abraham Sofaer (So-FAIR) is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California and former legal advisor at the State Department. He says current U-S policy reserves the option of preemption where a grave threat is posed to it or its allies. The policy can be invoked if that threat involves weapons of mass destruction and if that attack cannot be stopped or deterred through means short of the use of force.

He says the policy is mostly consistent with historical legal precedent except when it comes to the meaning of imminence.

TAPE: CUT 8 SOFAER :15

"Most international lawyers stress the factor of imminence and that goes back to an old case in American history where Daniel Webster said that in order to preempt someone from attacking you, you have to feel that an attack by that person is imminent."

CC: The Bush administration argues the concept of what constitutes an imminent threat must be adapted to reflect the capabilities and aims of terrorist groups. The national security strategy says that so-called "rogue states" and terrorists do not attack using conventional means, but rather rely on acts of terror. And analysts fear that terrorists may soon have access to weapons of mass destruction which can be easily concealed, delivered, and used without warning.

But because the Bush Administration has assigned less importance to the concept of imminence, observers note it may have greater legal leeway in launching an attack on Iraq. Nonetheless, Abraham Sofaer believes that U-N Security Council Resolution 1441, which calls on Iraq to disarm, does confer the authority to use force against Saddam Hussein.

TAPE: CUT 10 SOFAER :41

"I think, given his conduct and given the enormous support that we have obtained in the Security Council in the form of findings, conclusions, warnings, etc. and what Congress has done, I think, yes, the case is overwhelming that we should act, and we should act alone if we had to, but much, much more preferably with others. Given the fact that it's not an easy case to use force in Iraq preemptively, without the Security Council's approval, it is certainly very advantageous and appropriate for us to go to the Security Council and keep trying to get more and more authority, and more and more findings, and more and more support."

CC: It appears that Bush administration officials, along with their British allies are doing just that. Whether or not they will be successful in convincing members of the Security Council, particularly France, to approve the draft resolution saying that the use of force is now appropriate against Iraq, remains to be seen.

But armed with Resolution 1441 and the doctrine of preemption, the Bush Administration may feel it has the legal and moral basis to launch a strike against Iraq----with or without final Security Council approval.

However, critics of preemption worry that careless use of the doctrine might undermine rather than enhance U.S. security. Professor Robert Dallek.

TAPE: CUT 12 DALEK :15

"What you may do by these preventive attacks is radicalize a lot more Muslims and people in the Arab world who will sign on to terrorism. So whether it will blunt or exacerbate the problem is of course the big controversy."

CC: Bush administration officials are quick to say that preemptive strikes would only be used as a last resort after all other means, including diplomacy, have been exhausted. Nevertheless, whether applied to Iraq or any other case where weapons of mass destruction are involved, the doctrine of preemption is sure to remain a controversial part of U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.

For Dateline, I'm Carol Castiel in Washington.

MUSIC: [CHOPIN MILITARY POLONAISE]