You say toh-MAY-toh, I say toh-MAH-toh.

It's a lot more than that. With an imminent threat, you have a moral certainty of being attacked. It really is defensive, in that you're acting to fend off a specific attack that you know is coming, and that you can't prevent by other means, due to it's imminence.

Under the preemptive "doctrine," you're acting out of speculation about mere possibilities, about which you have no reasonable certainty.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Untrue. There has for centuries been an accepted set of conditions under which war is justified. "

You need to do some study of war over the centuries. Even during the last 50 or so years, when there has been a UN type organization setting up some rules for when countries can go to war, that's not the same as saying there's a checklist for when to go. A+B+C may justify war, but that doesn't mean that A+B+C = war. And over history, countries have gone to war for any number of reasons, some related to threats, and many others related to desire for territory, or ideaological differences, or greed, or whatever. there is not and has not been a standard set of rules for when to go to war.

"The only difference now is that we're unwilling to take any casualties at all, and we're willing to do anything to avoid that."

If you don't see the difference between the security environment during the Cold War, and the security environment now, you need to head over to the Triathlon forum and talk about disc wheels or something because the difference is pretty important, and our foreign policy for the last 50 years or so has been set up in opposition to the Cold War type of threat. The last ten years or so have been a struggle to decide where to go now, and the newest threats are indeed significantly different, not in body count, but in body count and available reaction time.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Now we're both using circular reasoning to argue this thing. You're saying that we weren't acting out of a moral certainty, which I disagree with, given the evidence available at the time. Leaving aside all of the other stuff with UN resolutions and the like, the evidence that was presented by Secretary Powell, President Bush, his CIA head, the intelligence agencies of Britain, Russia and others, said that he had WMDs and that they presented an imminent and credible threat to the safety and security of the United States.

Taking that evidence into account, and weighing it carefully (one would hope), the Congress, with the concurrence of John Kerry and John Edwards, incidentally, voted to authorize the President to go to war with Iraq. No wording in the authorization indicated that it was then his duty to come back yet again for another authorization that, in effect, told Saddam "hey....this time we really mean it!"

If they acted wrongly, and as a result of too much reliance on available intelligence, then they should explain so. I agree with that point. I don't agree that any sort of apology is in order, and to say that they flat-out lied in an effort to engineer a war against Iraq is to suppose that every single person of high rank or significance in the Bush administration, the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security, among other agencies, allowed themselves to be co-opted and led down the primrose path. I really don't think that all of them are that stupid or naive, do you?

Now that Iraq has been invaded, and the war is in a different phase, all of the naysayers and Monday morning quarterbacks will have their say, won't they? And we'll all probably confront a number of very difficult questions and possibilities on November 3rd.

You need to do some study of war over the centuries. Even during the last 50 or so years, when there has been a UN type organization setting up some rules for when countries can go to war, that's not the same as saying there's a checklist for when to go.

Wow, even as far back as 50 years ago. . .

A+B+C may justify war, but that doesn't mean that A+B+C = war. And over history, countries have gone to war for any number of reasons Uh-huh. And some of them were justified, and some of them weren't. That isn't the point. The point is that there has been a widely accepted set of conditions under which a nation has the right to go to war. If you're unaware of that basic historical fact, you need to do some studying yourself.

If you don't see the difference between the security environment during the Cold War, and the security environment now It isn't that I don't see any difference, it's that I don't believe those differences are such that we need to throw out the old rules to deal with them. And if we are going to throw out the old rules, we better come up with a new set better than, "The president figures out who needs invading." And so far, we seem incapable of doing so.

The last ten years or so have been a struggle to decide where to go now, and the newest threats are indeed significantly different, not in body count, but in body count and available reaction time. Ironic that reaction time is one of your justifications for the applying the "new rules" to Iraq, seeing as how timeliness wasnt' really a consideration on out part.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Wow, even as far back as 50 years ago. . . "

Yeah, even as far back as 50 years because befroe that there wasn't an organization of nations dedicated to setting up rules about when to go to war. No need to be snotty.

"The point is that there has been a widely accepted set of conditions under which a nation has the right to go to war."

You're just plain wrong. For many centuries, you were justified in going to war just so long as you won. Just because we look back now and label people as despots or label their wars as land grabs or whatever doesn't mean that there was international consensus about the legitimacy of those wars. War was a way of life and your "accepted set of conditions" is imaginary.

"The president figures out who needs invading"

The President has always been responsible for helping to set foreign policy and preemption doesn't circumvent any Consitutional checks and balances. It's not like Pres Bush can just throw a dart at a map and go to war. Just like any other policy it requires the people's trust that govt. will choose carefully based on the best information available when to go to war. If you don't have that confidence in your elected officials, vote in somebody new.

"ronic that reaction time is one of your justifications for the applying the "new rules" to Iraq"

Hold your horses their buddy. I never used my logic to justify any particular action, just to explain the doctrine and to explain why it's use doesn't necessarily spell doom for the US. Don't put words in my mouth, please.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Under the preemptive "doctrine," you're acting out of speculation about mere possibilities, about which you have no reasonable certainty. "

I have just caught up with this thread (work interfers with my time here)

I don't think it is as loose a decision as you are making it out. The president does not wake up one morning, throw a dart at the map and say "bad country, must invade."

The invasion of Iraq came after what appears to be a lot of ground work. The fact that the intelligence proved to be incorrect, at least so far, does not deligitamize the action.

In part, that is what drives me crazy about Kerry. He was quick to get out in front in supporting the war when it seemed to be the will of the people. When the wind shifted he has turned around on the point. When you parse his position, it is difficult to find substantive differences in what he would do in Iraq now. Fantasies aside about growing the coallition, presumably France, Germany and Russia. Kerry wants to train the locals to do the job. Bush is doing it already. Get troops home when the job is done. Bush has already said that. etc.

If your point is that preemptive war is ok as long as it is imminent, that is what Bush was doing by his definition. You don't get to decide what is sufficiently imminent to merit response. The president, in consultation with all of his advisors and the consent of Congress, takes action.

for the record, we did sign the kyoto protocol, just haven't ratified it.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Thanks for the clarification.

would he have ever had an opportunity though? seems that based on some pre- and post-invasion reports that he was well contained and that sanctions were working.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

It was voted down 95-0 in the Senate. Clinton pulled it and sat on it after that. Bush and his crowd don't want anything to do with it in its present form.

Who knows? But, given the intelligence estimates at the time, the President, in conjunction with the Congress, decided on authorization for war. Both branches of government will answer for that on the 2nd.

Lord knows we've been arguing this one all day, for sure :-)

Water under the bridge I guess. Point is, we're there now and the key is supporting the effort to get us the heck out of there ASAP.

even as far back as 50 years because befroe that there wasn't an organization of nations dedicated to setting up rules about when to go to war. No need to be snotty.

Sorry for the snottiness. Regardless of whether or not there was an organization setting up rules about when to go to war, you can believe that such standards predate the UN by centuries.

For many centuries, you were justified in going to war just so long as you won. Not for most of the history of Western Civilization, commodore.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Et tu, Tri?

The president does not wake up one morning, throw a dart at the map and say "bad country, must invade." OK, if you say so. What I'm asking is by what standards does he make that decision now? There don't seem to be any standards now that we've discarded the old ones as outmoded. That's a serious problem, don't you think? That nobody can articulate what we consider grounds for war these days?

The fact that the intelligence proved to be incorrect, at least so far, does not deligitamize the action. No, the fact that the intelligence never, at any point, indicated that a threat was imminent deligitamizes the action. The fact that it was "preemptive" deligitamizes it.

If your point is that preemptive war is ok as long as it is imminent My point is that preemptive action and action taken to defend against imminent attack are two entirely different things.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

i am aware of the record of the kyoto protocol in the senate. also aware that clinton likely signed the thing to appease environmentalists and make the senate look like the bad guy. finally, there is no chance it gets ratified unless a large group of senators decide that re-election isn't high on their agenda.

with that said, as far as i am aware(i'd have to read the protocol again to make certain), whether the u.s. ratifies the treaty is an internal issue(i.e. whether it becomes law of the land within this country). with respect to the international community/other signatories, however, i believe signing the treaty bound the united states to the terms of the treaty and thus the u.s. is in violation of its obligations.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"What I'm asking is by what standards does he make that decision now?"

Are you familiar with Justice Potter Stewart's most famous quote?

The point is that with the shifting nature of threats these days, (what our friend BK would refer to as asymetric) the standard is and must be flexible. The system for evaluating threats determines the response.

"No, the fact that the intelligence never, at any point, indicated that a threat was imminent deligitamizes the action."

We disagree on this point. Il Presidente believed that Iraq constituted an imminent threat. I trust that the decision to go to war was not capricious.

"My point is that preemptive action and action taken to defend against imminent attack are two entirely different things."

Again, we disagree on this point. I think as applied, there is no difference between preemptive action and defense against imminent attack. The point is that the President, in reliance on the system in place, determined that immediate action was needed. In hindsight you can reevaluate the decision. Not unreasonably it appears that the system needs a bit of tuning.

Are you familiar with Justice Potter Stewart's most famous quote? Yes, and it's a piss poor standard for the world's most powerful nation to use to determine what constitutes a threat.

We disagree on this point. Il Presidente believed that Iraq constituted an imminent threat. You disagree with the administration, too, then. They don't claim to have had any intel which indicated an imminent threat.

I think as applied, there is no difference between preemptive action and defense against imminent attack. You're simply and plainly wrong. Response to an imminent threat is a response against a specific attack which cannot otherwise be prevented- you're certain that if you don't act immediately, the attack will occur. A preemptive attack is taken as precaution against the mere potentiality of some future attack. It isn't that hard to see the difference. If there wasn't one, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Yes, and it's a piss poor standard for the world's most powerful nation to use to determine what constitutes a threat. "

It might suffer from the problems with analogies, but it does illustrate a change in kind between traditional nation state fighting and terrorist fighting. It allows for sufficient flexibility in delivering a response.

"They don't claim to have had any intel which indicated an imminent threat."

I think the administration based it, in part, on a belief that Iraq could have nukes within a couple of years if left to proceed undisturbed. This gets to the issue of how to define imminent.

"Response to an imminent threat is a response against a specific attack which cannot otherwise be prevented- you're certain that if you don't act immediately, the attack will occur."

I think the administration would adopt this definition and say that described the situation as they understood it at the time the war kicked off. That is, but for immediate intervention, Iraq would continue with a course of conduct which included the development of WMD and fostering terrorist attacks against CONUS.

"It isn't that hard to see the difference. If there wasn't one, we wouldn't be having this discussion."

sure we would. Isn't contention for contention's sake the purpose of this room?

This gets to the issue of how to define imminent.

It doesn't mean "possible." Which is what you seem to want it to mean.

I think the administration based it, in part, on a belief that Iraq could have nukes within a couple of years if left to proceed undisturbed.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the administration really did believe that. That is not imminent. That's possible. Potential. Unknown. Not imminent.

"Imminent" is a real word with a real meaning. You can't torture it into meaning whatever you want.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"It doesn't mean "possible." Which is what you seem to want it to mean."

No, it does not. That is why we don't nuke China. A problem for the future. Or for an historical reference, it's why Patton did not get to drive the russians back to Moscow.

What it does mean is that the president as the head of the national security apparatus, gets to decide what needs to be delt with now.

Will you concede that waiting until Iraq had successfully tested a nuke is a bit late to do anything about it? If yes, you have to concede that the president, hopefully in possession of more information than you and me, gets to make the call. If not, you deny the president the ability to respond to threats to the country.

Well, let's get all the definitions right here, because we've been using the common definitions of preemption and imminent, which is fine, but they can be disputed.

According to the DoD dictionary of military terms a "preepmtive attack is defined as:

"An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." (imminent meaning likely to occur at any moment)

What I think you're concerned with Vitus, is "preventative war" which is defined as:

"A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk"

It's not clear to most Americans which of these definitions Iraq fits into, because, as has been said many times, the Administration was not clear about whether or not they felt Iraq was an imminent threat, or a gathering/potential/future threat. The time frame in which Iraq was likely to attack the US was never clear, as individual representatives of the administration said imminent, or potential, or whatever. The idea of "prevention" is the one that sticks with most people, because it requires the security establishment to make a best guess determination about threats before incontrovertible evidence is at hand. The reason we are using this type of standard as a possible means for jusifying the use of force is because we may never get that kind of evidence given the types of threat we now face, and Pres Bush is not willing to wait until that evidence is presented in the form of dead Americans.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Will you concede that waiting until Iraq had successfully tested a nuke is a bit late to do anything about it? No.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

According to the DoD dictionary of military terms a "preepmtive attack is defined as:
"An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent." (imminent meaning likely to occur at any moment)


"preventative war" which is defined as:
"A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk"

Thank you, commodore, those are excellent definitions, and I move we adopt them.

Of course, I have a problem with the way preventive war is defined, seeing as how one cannot know that war is inevitable if it isn't imminent.

The idea of "prevention" is the one that sticks with most people, because it requires the security establishment to make a best guess determination about threats before incontrovertible evidence is at hand.

Exactly. Which is why I oppose this type of thing. It involves best guesses, which are not- should not- be sufficient grounds for something as serious and harmful as going to war.

The reason we are using this type of standard as a possible means for jusifying the use of force is because we may never get that kind of evidence given the types of threat we now face, and Pres Bush is not willing to wait until that evidence is presented in the form of dead Americans.

Also fundamentally correct. And in contravention to the accepted norms of most of our history.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

If you don't want to play with my comments, how about Slowguy's?

"The reason we are using this type of standard as a possible means for jusifying the use of force is because we may never get that kind of evidence given the types of threat we now face, and Pres Bush is not willing to wait until that evidence is presented in the form of dead Americans.

Also fundamentally correct. And in contravention to the accepted norms of most of our history."

Here is where we disagree. I do not believe that traditional norms for kicking off a war, such as crossing boarders, apply any longer. If they did, we could engage in traditional war goals: destroy the enemy's ability to conduct war, take territory, destroy the enemy government.

Under current conditions, we don't necessarily know where the enemy is hiding. To the extent the President, as head of the security establishment, identifies threats, they can and should be destroyed. In the case of Iraq, Saddam was identified as a threat and destroyed. To do otherwise invites attacks on US interests which could be avoided by preemptively destroying the threat.

I do not believe that traditional norms for kicking off a war, such as crossing boarders, apply any longer. I know that you know the traditional norms for kicking off a war- the previously accepted grounds for war- are not that narrow. Afghanistan is a case in point.

If they did, we could engage in traditional war goals: destroy the enemy's ability to conduct war, take territory, destroy the enemy government. Funny, because that's almost precisely the means by which we waged war in Iraq. That isn't the question at hand.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."