Preemptive War Doctrine & The Influence Of The 9/11 Attacks

Micah Saichek Pols 2900-Special Topics Shari Lee Sowards Preemptive War Doctrine & the Influence of the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

The political and social climate of the world is growing ever-more tense. Struggles for power, control of resources, and security are abound. The dangers posed by terrorism have become more salient and, as some claim, inescapable. With threats of war, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the stakes for survival rise, and the options for countering these threats have to be constantly revised, and all strategies considered. With such a charged atmosphere, all options must remain on the table, and the consequences of not acting could be too steep to warrant inaction. A policy of preemption has been professed, and as declared by the United States government, must be retained to sufficiently protect the security of the state, and for good reason. The terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001wrought unmitigated destruction upon the innocent population of the United States. A deciding factor that led to the attacks was in-action on the part of the United States, allowing terrorist cells to operate within our own borders without investigation, despite some warnings. The national security strategy of the united states dictates in the introduction: “We will cooperate with other nations to deny, contain, and curtail our enemies’ efforts to acquire dangerous technologies. And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.”(1) The United States national security strategy continues: “We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. So we must be prepared to defeat our enemies’ plans, using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation.“(1) This is an important statement with significant implications. Using the language dictated by the United States government, as well as considering the U.N. charters, and international law, we will be able to gauge whether preemption was necessary and just.

One prominent and increasingly used tactic is the act utilized in foreign policy and to assure national security is preemptive war. In this new age, where information sharing is almost instantaneous, are we able to properly gauge threats by state and nonstate actors? Is it even possible to act in the present, an attempt to counteract what could exist only in the future? If one is to act on intelligence alone, what justifications are considered acceptable, and what doctrine should be adhered to, to stay within the framework of law both domestically and internationally? To investigate this issue, a clear definition must be ascertained of the many different strategies used within foreign policy, in the past and the present. Words can be weighted, and often times have multiple uses and meanings. It has become increasingly difficult in this technological age to find truth. One persons truth is another’s farce. Attempting to even define the phrase ‘preemptive war’ proves troublesome. As such, several different definitions will be examined and used accordingly. Preemptive war is based in an anticipatory foundation, with some fear of an imminent threat or attack, or reactions to war games by opposing countries. In 1841, Secretary of State Daniel Webster described the conditions for preemptive war when the need for them is “instant [and] overwhelming, and [leaves] no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation."(2) Another qualifier needed for a preemptive attack is that the attack must be in proportion to the threat, and not excessive. A similarly worded description comes from Steven Walsh, a research analyst at the Center for Defense Information: “The prevailing view probably is that, one way or another, anticipatory selfdefense is permissible but traditionally has required the existence of an imminent threat”.(2) There appears to be somewhat of a consensus, resting on the basis of an

urgent, immediate, clear and present threat to national security. This will make the task of gauging whether a war was preemptive easier. On the other hand, preventive war takes on the flipside of preemption, and seems to discard the rules of an imminent attack. Preventive war, as opposed to preemptive war, is a war or attack waged to actually prevent a country from acquiring weapons, technology, territory, or some unforeseen gain of power or influence. Preventive war is seen as unjust in some eyes because there is no clear and present danger involved with an attack of this nature, it is truly an attack to prevent some future loss of influence or power, without provocation. Because this form of war does not involve a sudden, urgent need for self defense, it is not given as much credence as preemptive war. J Warren Smith, an author from the Journal of Religious ethics gives an ample definition of preventive war: “A preventive war, by contrast, differs from a preemptive war in that while there may be a possible future threat, there is no imminent threat or vulnerability. The goal of preventive war is to prevent another nation from gaining a geopolitical advantage that would break the balance of power.”(3) This has important implications, and is another definition that can be used to gauge, examine, and possibly justify(or prove unjust) wars in history, more pointedly, the two most recent conflicts waged by the United States: Afghanistan and Iraq. There is a well-accepted definition of preemptive war in international law: “Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable.”(2) One problem with preventive war is its status being illegal under international law. Its illegality stems from the hypothetical aspect of justification. Literally anything

could happen in the future, and almost certainly conflicts with rogue states and non-state terrorists will occur. By using imaginative reasoning, any single state on the planet could be construed as an enemy that needs to be stopped, before power can be consolidated. On the other hand, preemptive war is based on a more solid ground, either by intelligence gathering which would imply an attack is urgent, or implicit threats made by a state/terrorist itself. In the information age where sharing and communication are practically instant, intelligence gathering has become more reliable, and the ability of intelligence agencies to share information with each other has become streamlined. By these accords, preemptive war is becoming more acceptable and the ability for it to be justified has increased. Historical Context Preemptive war has an interesting history. Throughout human history, from preagricultural nomads to the present day, humans have waged war, for many different reasons. Preemptive war is rooted within Just War Theory. Using the qualifications and requirements for a just war, one is able to give a moral justification for conflict. St Augustine originated the theory of just war, and delivered the following criteria: 1. Just Cause- A just war is apt to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly. 2. Proper Authority-The legitimate authority must declare the war and must be acting on behalf of the people. 3. Right Intention- True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace or

punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good. 4. Last Resort-All reasonable peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted or have been deemed impractical or ineffective. 5. Proportionality- The good that is achieved by waging war must not be outweighed by the harm. 6. Probability of success-The achievement of the war's purpose must have a reasonable chance of success. These all seem to stress the importance of restraint, honor, and honesty. Relying on the just war theory and international law will augment the strategy for discussing the legality and morality of modern day wars. It is said that Israel’s ‘six day war’ against Jordan, Syria and Egypt was an example of a justified preemptive war because of the threatening stance Syria and Egypt took, amassing troops and tanks along the border with Israel. This was seen, and declared by Israel as an imminent threat, and they attacked accordingly. Some argue that the U.S. declaration of war against Germany in world war 2 constituted a preemptive attack, because no German’s had actually attacked the United States yet(notwithstanding the defense treaties made between Japan and Germany.) Conversely, some have said that the attack on Panama to capture the drug kingpin Manuel Noriega was more preventive in nature. It is clear that the definitions and justifications for preemptive wars constantly change, and are partly subjective, it depends on who you ask, and what information relied upon to make those claims. In present day history, the arguments for and against preemptive war have become ever louder, the consequences of action or non-action have ballooned, as we possess lethal technology which has the capability to kill off the entire planet. The importance of restraint, rationality and reason

cannot be stressed enough with the current political atmosphere so charged, and with such dire consequences possible. Preemptive wars: In Theory and Use As covered earlier, Preemptive war justification is based within the context of the Just War Theory. The Just War Theory can be looked at in two ways: theoretical and historical. The theoretical aspect deals with the ethics of battle, searching for the moral justification, or the moral high ground. This is sought because the war or conflict waged will be looked upon in a more honorable sense, and may provide leeway or leverage in the international community. If the international consensus is that a war is justified and moral, then there will(in theory) be less objection, and possibly having an international peace-keeping force assist with the conflict, or help to garner support, such as the “coalition of the willing”. If, however, the war or attack is seen as not just, the path traveled becomes much more difficult, both in monetary and physical terms. The historical aspect of the Just War theory looks to international norms and treaties that have been historically applied in past wars. With the advent of the United Nations, and agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions, there is a body of law to draw upon. If the attack plan falls within these established parameters, it will hopefully be viewed as preemptive, moral, and justified. Although there have been past actions committed by Nations that defected from Just War Theory, it has survived as a valid rulebook for warfare. Within the United States military, it is extremely important to follow codes of conduct and rules of engagement, the punishment can be severe if not adhered to. Beyond United States law, the international realm has adopted its own set of norms. The Hague conventions, which took place at the end of the 1800’s and early

1900’s, yielded a set of international norms to follow, which deal with the technologies of war and conduct of countries involved. One of the main aims of the Hague Conventions was outlawing the use of damaging chemical, biological weapons, and forms of deadly ammunition. The Geneva conventions concerned more the treatment of prisoners of war, and non-combatants. Following these guidelines, and exhausting all diplomatic and peaceful options will aid in the pursuit of a just conflict. The Terrorist Attacks of September 11th On September 11th, 2001, the United States was attacked by a group of religious terrorists, who assumed the command of four civilian airlines and crashed them into three strategic American targets. Many thousand innocent civilians perished that day, and America was awestruck. In the United States, for a number of years before the attacks of 9/11, an attitude of isolationism prevailed, falsely believing that our surrounding oceans shielded us from the world. Some experts agree that this was a false sense of security, others point to failures of communication and intelligence gathering. But one thing was clear, and was presented on national television for the world to see: we were attacked unprovoked, and there would be consequences. President Bush, in a speech to the nation on September 11th, announced “Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured, and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks. The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”(4) This was a bold, relevant and important statement. Terrorists attacks have occurred arguably throughout

history, in every corner of the world. Every country faces some kind of threat. But this terrorist attack opened up a proverbial can of worms, and ushered in a new way of thinking about the terrorist threat, and America’s position in the world. It was evident from the opinion columns to the nightly news correspondents. On December 23rd, 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to a crowd at Mcchord Air force Base, about the threats America faces. “In a sense, 9/11 changed everything for us. 9/11 forced us to think in new ways about threats to the United States, about our vulnerabilities, about who our enemies were, about what kind of military strategy we needed in order to defend ourselves. It's a combination of strategy that involves not only going after the individuals who perpetrate terrorist attacks -- we've done that before. We've got to mount military operations whenever that's necessary and appropriate, in order to take out the bad guys before we can launch further attacks against the United States.”(5) The use of preemption has been around for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Terrorism has also always been a part of world history. But here is the Vice President, laying out the defense strategy for the United States, using the attacks of September 11th as justification for further preemption. Preemptive war, and anything else in life is debatable, but there is truth in Mr. Cheney’s words. The most important job that the United States government performs is national security. There can be no domestic agenda, freedom, and prosperity, if the territory or sovereignty of the nation is threatened. Cheney was also correct in pointing out that we face a new kind of threat. Historically, war has been waged by states, which command and wield military power. But the attacks of September 11th were a recent instance where a stateless actor commanded military power, and used to it attack a nation state, and this could be viewed as trying to upset the

current balance of power. Whether or not one believes the United States has the moral high ground for future attacks in the name of self-defense, and anticipatory strikes, there is much credence given to the cause of the U.S. attacking Afghanistan in the wake of the September 11th attacks. The United Nations in 2001 authorized the attack on Afghanistan, which spoke of an international consensus, practically the whole world sympathized with America’s position. Influential Foreign Policy Figures When examining preemption as a foreign policy instrument, it is also important and worthwhile to note government officials involved in making such decisions. As mentioned earlier, preemption has been around for a long time, and there are many who subscribe to the belief that preemptive war is justified, and necessary. In the current Bush administration, there are many self-proclaimed "neoconservatives" in high positions, and some officials served under previous presidents as well. It would be worthwhile to mention a few key figures, and their possible influences on foreign policy. Neoconservatism was born from liberals that had found a new awakening in conservatism, led by Irving Kristol in the early 1960's. Some liberals did not relate to the radical antiwar movement that resulted from the Vietnam conflict, and this helped to foster a militaristic-heavy view. The tensions felt in the world during that time helped to foster many new political and ideological movements, and this was one example. Neo conservatives have a few main aims, concerning low taxation, unconcerned with a burgeoning government, enforcing and improving morality and moral values, expanding foreign policies, and defending the national interest at all costs. It is evident where these beliefs break ranks with traditional conservatives, and it is also interesting to note that

George W. Bush, while campaigning for the 2000 elections, spoke of a humble, conservative foreign policy, campaigned against nation building. It is thought that some of the neo conservative thinkers in the Bush administration did not really have a foothold on foreign policy early on, and in the first year of Bush’s tenure, the neo-con ideas were not as influential, or so it seemed. It was with the attacks of September 11th that created a world environment deemed suitable for some of the more radical neoconservative ideals. Other prominent neo-conservatives include Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Michael Ladeen, and many others. The amount of influence these key figures wielded becomes clear when you examine exactly where these figures were operating. Irving Kristol is an author, editor, lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and now writes for the neoconservative think-tank "American Enterprise Institute". Norman Podhoretz is an author, worked as an advisor to the U.S. information agency, writes for another think tank, The Hudson Institute, and is currently working as the foreign policy advisor for current presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. Paul Wolfowitz is arguably one of the most powerful neoconservatives, a diplomat, policy maker, military strategist, and was working for the world bank just a few months ago. Paul Wolfowitz has been a "major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy and, within the Administration, its most passionate and compelling advocate."(6) An even more interesting development was the foundation of a group called the 'Project for a New American Century'. In 1997, a statement was released that spoke of lofty goals that the United States should be pursuing, and pointing out failures in current foreign and domestic policies. The ideas presented include "Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of

global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests."(7) One of the consequences of following their policies is put forth "We need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."(7) The people who signed onto this document reads like a laundry list of government cabinet members and prominent figures in Washington: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, norman podhoretz, Donald rumsfeld, Paul wolfowitz, and a number of others. This has extremely important implications in the formation of foreign policies, especially when so many figures are currently holding cabinet positions with the power to accomplish their stated objectives. Although this document was written before the attacks of September 11th, it seems to have come to fruition as a result of the tumultuous mayhem that resulted. After the September 11th attacks, the United States immediately went on the defensive, attacked Afghanistan, but did not stop there. The 'Bush Doctrine' seems to follow along the same lines and mirrors the actions that neoconservatives would be assumed to make: Drastically increased military spending, challenging countries that don't have democratic governments to move towards freedom, and aggressively defending our national interests, at home and abroad. September 12th, 2001, and Beyond Now we must examine the subsequent military actions taken after september 11th, 2001. On the day of the attacks, there were already news stories reporting the possible terrorist act, the picture of Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the 9/11 plot,

even made its way to the big screen. President Bush's speech the night of september 11th announced "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."(4) This important statement clearly lays out the defense policy to be followed, and it has been. On September 12th, the day following the attacks, the United Nations assembled and created U.N. resolution 1368 which "Unequivocally"(8) condemned the terrorist acts, and called upon all states to rebuke this action, and to bring justice to the perpetrators. Resolution 1373 further condemned the actions, and " Reaffirming the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense as recognized by the Charter of the United Nations as reiterated in resolution 1368"(8). This holds importance because it is recognized by the international community that states have the inherent right of self defense, and this forms the legal basis for the attack on Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot really be considered a preemptive war, because it was clearly a retaliatory attack. One could say that it was a preemptive action to remove the standing government in power, because it seems a separate issue from revenge on those who attacked us. However, President Bush dictated clearly with his 9/11 speech, that the United States will not differentiate between terrorists and countries that harbor them. But this has somewhat far-reaching implications, it lays the groundwork for further preemptive strikes that were not necessarily in response to the 9/11 attacks, or any attack at all. The next military action taken by the United States underscores this point exactly. Two years later, after successfully invading and occupying Afghanistan, a new

conflict emerged: The war against Iraq. This has been an absolute hotbed for the entire world, opinions vary widely, especially once going outside the borders of the United States. To effectively gauge whether or not Iraq was a preemptive war, we must take in all accounts, the political atmosphere, and what led to this action. Following in the spirit of the PNAC(project for a new American century) charter, neoconservative strategy, and Bush's declared foreign policy objectives, Iraq became the new biggest threat to the world, because of its pursuit of and refusal to relinquish its weapons of mass destruction(WMD's) and nuclear-related activities. There had been several United Nations resolutions aimed against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, who in 1991, agreed to give up all pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, but his subsequent refusal to comply stood in violation of those agreements with the United Nations. People in the United States still had the attacks of september 11th in their minds, and no sane person wanted another 9/11 to occur. So when these charges were leveled against Hussein's regime, and fear generated by statements such as “We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"(9) were presented to the American people, they were taken seriously. President Bush made it clear that Iraq could not pursue WMD's, and called on it to submit to U.N. resolutions that allowed Nuclear inspectors to monitor Iraq's programs. When Iraq declined, and eventually kicked inspectors out of the country, this was seen as further evidence that Iraq was a rogue state, intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and the situation seemed to bear this out. But President Bush faced problems with the United Nations security council, and from his own intelligence agencies, who had conflicting reports about Iraq's weapons capabilities. In early 2003, the United States, Britain, and Spain proposed an eighteenth

resolution against Iraq, which gave a deadline for compliance to all previous resolutions. This 'resolution' also came with a promise of military action if it was not adhered to, but this resolution failed to garner enough support in the Security council, and was withdrawn. In President Bush's State of the Union address(2003), he proclaimed "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"(10). Without the support of the United Nations security council, the United States, leading with a coalition of 40 countries, invaded Iraq in March, 2003. First, we should gauge this attack by comparing it to the given definitions of a valid, preemptive war. As secretary of state Daniel describes it, was the need for action against Iraq absolutely imminent, with no time for deliberation? It depends on who you ask, and what intelligence you utilize. If Saddam Hussein already had mass-produced nuclear weapons, and had them aimed directly at the U.S., this should constitute a direct, clear and imminent threat to America. But some of the United State's own intelligence agencies reflected the opposite conclusion. In 2005, the Iraq Study group concluded that Iraq had not restarted its pre-1991 weapons programs, and Hans Blix, the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, provided supporting evidence and took the same position months before the war started. The subsequent invasion of Iraq yielded almost zero results of the massive quantities of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that were presented to the United Nations as an imminent threat the United States, and the world. There were also claims made that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al-Queda, to try and bolster support for the

attacks, but this was found to be flawed and false as well. In a situation like this, it truly comes down to the intelligence available to the people in power. The civilian population will never know the full extent of intelligence and classified information, therefore we cannot make concrete conclusions about whether the attack on America was really imminent. If Saddam Hussein truly did have intentions on acquiring and building nuclear weapons, then he should have been dealt with accordingly. There is no question that Hussein was a heinous, rogue, and brutal dictator, and inflicted harm upon his own population. There are only a small minority who actually argue that removing Hussein was worse than leaving him in power. Especially with the heightened threat of nuclear terrorism and proliferation, it is important to protect the United States vital security interests, and this could be equated with deposing Hussein from power. Was the (second) invasion of Iraq justified in the eyes of St. Augustine? We arguably did have just cause, Hussein had inflicted harm on his own people, and sanctions against his regime did not prove to be sufficient punishment, and did not yield the desired results.. Did we have legitimate and proper authority, and was it enacted on behalf of the people? This answer involves a grey area of international politics. The international community lives with an agreement on state sovereignty and control over its own territory. International law also has a forum to mediate disputes(U.N). But because the United States is the lone superpower, we can sometimes break the rules, that is one perk of hegemony. If you believe that the United Nations charter is the law of the land, then technically we did not follow the legitimate path of procuring that last security resolution authorizing force against Iraq. If you adhere to the hegemony camp, then the United States did have authority, because we make the rules, and have sufficient force

behind us. Did the United States have the "right intentions", and were we fighting for security and to punish the evil doers? I believe that the United States most vital interest is national security, and if that is threatened, it is justified to use force to ensure security. Did we punish the evil doers? Hussein is now cold and dead, which seems sufficient punishment in retrospect. But did our invasion of Iraq help the civlian population ? This is an arguable point. Removing a tyrant from power, to allow freedom for the citizens is in the public interest. But this act is tarnished by the thousands of innocent Iraqi's, millions of refugees that had to flee the violence, cholera tainting the water supply, and an electricity grid that does not function properly. Was this the absolute last resort, were all peaceful alternatives foregone? Again, this could be debated. If the United States had pushed for and obtained that much needed resolution against Iraq authorizing force, it would've been the justification needed, and would've been legal in the eyes of the world. But the world community rejecting this resolution is, in a sense, the last resort, the United States would not have been able to act without it. Conclusions and future use of preemption It is clear that the United States faces threats from every corner of the world. The immense threat presented by nuclear weapons cannot be stressed enough, as a few bombs could wipe out the entire human population. It is recognized by international law that every nation-state has a right to rule over its territory, and cannot infringe upon the rights of another. And it is also recognized that self defense is a right of all nation-states. In this new, technologically advanced world, information sharing is instantaneous, people, supplies, and weapons can be moved around the earth at will. The stakes have been raised extremely high, and the dangers of terrorism have become more visible since the 9/11

attacks. The United States must reserve the right to act preemptively in any and all circumstances, because it is literally life or death. As long as the most credible, trustworthy intelligence is utilized, all other diplomatic and non-violent avenues are attempted and exhausted, then preemptive war is justified. When an act of war is seen as legitimate, it is to the benefit of most parties involved. American Government and Politics Today describes preemptive war: " Some point out that preemptive wars against other nations have traditionally been waged by dictators and rogue states- not democratic nations. By employing such tactics, the United States would seem to be contradicting its basic values. Others claim that launching a preemptive wars will make it difficult for the united states to further world peace in the future. By endorsing such a policy itself, the United States could hardly argue against the decisions of other nations to do likewise when they feel potentially threatened"(11) These are very important implications, and valid points raised when faced with such an important issue. These conclusions need to be examined, discussed, and formulated to aid in the future legitimacy of United States military action, to properly face the actions of other states in reaction, to ensure that the United States retains the moral and ethical high ground in conflict, and to ensure the survival of freedom, prosperity, and liberty, for ourselves, and the international community.

Endnotes 1. George W. Bush, "The National Security Strategy of the United States: Introduction", September 17th 2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssintro.html 2. Steven C. Welsh "Preemptive War and International Law", International Security Law project, December 5, 2003,December 1, 2007 http://www.cdi.org/news/law/preemptivewar.cfm 3. J. Warren Smith, "Augustine and the Limits Of Preemptive and Preventive War", Journal of Religious Ethics, 1999, December 1, 2007 http://www.blackwellsynergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9795.2007.00298.x?cookieSet=1 4. "Statement by the President in His Address to the Nation", September 11, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html 5. "Remarks by the Vice President", December 23, 2003 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031223-1.html 6. Peter J. boyer, The Believer, The New Yorker, November 1, 2004, December 2, 2007, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/01/041101fa_fact 7. Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, et al, "Statement of Principles", Project for the New American Century, June 3, 1997, December 3, 2007, http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 8. United Nations Security Council, "Resolution 1368 (2001)" September 12, 2001, December 4, 2007, http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenEleme nt 9. Roger Morris, "Condoleezza Rice at the Center of the Plame Scandal",

Afterdowningstreet, July 28, 2005, December 4, 2007, http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/1069 10. George W. Bush, "The President Delivers the State of the Union", January 28, 2003, December 4, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html 11. Mack Bardes, Steffen Schmidt, Barbara Shelley, American Government and Politics Today, brief edition 2004-2005

Works Cited 1. "Preemptive War." SourceWatch. Online. 4/10/2007 6 December 2007. 2. "About the United Nations/history." United Nations. Online. 2007 6 December 2007. 3. Ackerman, David. "International Law and the Preemptive use of force against Iraq." House of Representatives upload files. Online. 3/17/2003 6 December 2007. 4. Boyer, Peter J. "The Believer." The New Yorker. 11/1/2004: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/11/01/041101fa_fact. 5. Chad. "United States War History." In the Bullpen. Online. 10/7/2004 6 December 2007. 6. Dershowitz, Alan. "The Case for preemptive war reviewed." OpenDemocracy. Online. 8/22/2007 6 December 2007. 7. Giry, Stephanie. "New War, Old Law." Legal Affairs. Online. 2/1/2003 6 December 2007. 8. "Iraq Survey Group Final Report." Global Security. Online. 2000-07 6 December 2007. 9. "Just War Theory." The internet encyclopedia of Philosophy. Online. 2006 6 December 2007. 10. "Laws of war." The Avalon Project at Yale Law school. Online. 12/6/2007 6 December 2007. 11. Lind, Michael. "How the neoconservatives conquered washington, and launched a war." Antiwar. Online. 4/10/2003 6 December 2007. 12. Nader, Ralph. "Preemptive war on a defenseless country." CounterPunch. Online. 3/25/2003 6 December 2007. 13. "President delivers State of the Union." The white house. Online. 1/28/2003

6 December 2007. 14. Reiter, Dan. "Preventive War and Its Alternatives: The Lessons of History." Commonwealth Institute. Online. 2007 6 December 2007. 15. "Remarks by the Vice president." The White House. Online. 12/22/2003 6 December 2007. 16. Rigstad, Mark. "Jus Ad Bellum After 9/11: A state of the art report." International Political Theory. Online. 2007 6 December 2007. 17. Saunders, Fr. William P. . "Possible war with Iraq." Catholic Herald. Online. 10/17/02 6 December 2007. 18. "Statement by the president of the united states." The white house. Online. 9/11/2001 6 December 2007. 19. "Statement of Principles." Project for the New American Century. Online. 6/3/1997 6 December 2007. 20. "The United Nations ." History Learning Site. Online. 2000-07 6 December 2007. 21. Ward, Dan Sewell. "Preemptive Rule." Library of Halexandria. Online. 6/8/2005 6 December 2007. 22. Welsh, Steven C. "Preemptive War and International Law." Center for Defense Information. Online. 12/5/2003 6 December 2007.