Talk:Preventive war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Definition
Who makes this distinction between preventive and pre-emptive war? Is that political science academics? I did some reading on these topics and alot of persons don't make this distinction. AdamRetchless
[edit] Summarize examples
Other than that, I don't think that it is good to put a lot of information about the examples. I think that it is best to just link to articles on particular preventive wars, and let that article discuss the motivations of the war. At most there should just be a couple of sentences about why this war may be described as "preventive" (George Bush claimed that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction). AdamRetchless 06:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Agree --Chealer 07:57, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)
[edit] WWI: Germany and Russia
I added a brief section on WWI. This is based on notes from a PoliSci class at Stanford. [1] I'm not sure how to reference this in the article. The particular quotes are from German foreign minister Gottlieb von Jagow, Chancleor Bethmann-Hollweg, and General Helmuth von Moltke AdamRetchless
The German perspective is but one of a number. The War began in the Balkans with the Assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Throne of the Austro/Hungarian Empire, by a member of a Serbian National Group. Serbia Had treaty obligations to Russia, Austria-Hungary had treaty obligations to Germany, England and France had treaty obligations to England and France.
The actual commencement of hostilities took place after the formal declarations of war. Preventive action therefore was a tactic of an already existing legal state of hostilities.
Bottom Line: you can't have a preventive war after the opposing sides have formally declared war, as the term has been rendered meaningless.
[edit] WWII: The Third Reich and Lebensraum
The entry discusses Germany's attack on the Low Countries in 1940 as examples of preventive war but that ignores the simple fact that Adolf Hitler attacked Poland, France and Britain's ally in 1939, and a state of War existed between Britain, France and Germany before the Nazi invasion of Holland and Belgium, both of which had defense treaties with England. Germany didn't invade those countries to prevent the UK from occupying them. A large British Expeditionary Force was already on the Continent before Hitler attacked. Again, one can't start a preventive war where an existing state of war exists between opponents.
Some argument in the past has existed for the idea of preventive war in German's attack on Poland, as the Germans claimed they were attacked first by the Poles, but the fact both Germany and Russia invaded Poland during the same month negated that idea. Russia and Germany carved up Poland among themselves in 1939. A claim of preventive war should have some factual data to support it.
In fact, Hitler's reason for attacking the Low Countries was the same as his "logic" for attacking Poland: Lebensraum. That is to say, living space for the German people. Hitler wanted land and every country with a border with Germany was in danger of attack. To quote in Hitler's own words: "Without consideration of "traditions" and prejudices, it [Germany] must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation." - Mein Kampf (1924)
I do not know of treaties between the Benelux countries and Britain, but the fact is that these countries were very much at peace with Germany until they were invaded by Germany. The Belgians resisted offers of the French to even plan a joint-defense in the case of a German invasion of Belgium. And a alrge British expeditionary force was indeed on the continent, but in France, not in the Benelux countries. As far as I know, Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands to lure the allied armies north into Belgium to cut them off through their main strike delivered through the Ardennes. thestor 10:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Six-Day War
- The Six-Day War, initiated by Israel, is regarded by many as a preventive war, since there was no overt invasion or attack against that country. The government of Israel and its supporters, however, believe that an Egyptian blockade preceding the invasion was a casus belli created a state of war and justifies the attack. Following the end of the war, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242. It instructed Israel to withdraw from the territories it had occupied: the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Israel has yet to comply with this instruction.
According to the information in the main article about the six-day war, this is a pre-emptive war, not a preventive war. The Arab countries had mobilized their armies and were moving into offensive positions. On top of that, there had never been a peace treaty from the previous war and there had been continuous border skirmishes. Israel attacked out of concern for it's immediate safety. This paragraph makes no argument that Israel was concerned with the long-term balance of power or that peaceful relations were possible. The last two sentences are off-topic and seem to be included simply to condemn Israel in this article. In other words, they are POV. AdamRetchless 07:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- The German version includes the sentences "The Six Days War between Israel and its arab neighbours was the only war thast was seen as legal according to modern international law. Contrarily, the Israeli air raid against the Iraqi nuclear power plant Osirak in 1981 was regarded as forbidden aggression." Who was it who judged like that? If it was the International Court who had to deal with the cases I think this should be mentioned, if it was someone else I do not think judgments should be reported as if they were facts. Get-back-world-respect 01:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
According to Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars", which he details the distinction between preemptive and preventive wars, he discusses the causes and build-up of the Israeli first=strike, saying: "The Israeli first strike is, I think, a clear case of legitimate anticipation [...] The general formula must go something like this: states may use military force in the face of threats of war, whenever the failure to do so would seriously risk their territorial integrity or political independence. Under such circumstances it can fairly be said that they have been forced to fight and that they are the victims of aggression. Since there are no police upon whom they can call the moment at which states are forced to fight probably comes sooner than it would for individuals in a settled domestic society. But if we can imagine an unstable society, like the "wild west" of American fiction, the analogy can be restated: a state under threat is like an individual being hunted by an enemy who has announced his intention of killing or injuring him. Surely such a person may surprise his hunted, he he is able to do so. "The formula is permissive, but it implied restrictions that can usefully be unpacked only to particular cases. It is obvious, for example, that measures short war are preferable to war itself, whenever they hold out the hope of similar or nearly similar effectiveness. But what those measures might be, or how long they must be tried, cannot be a matter of a priori stipulation. In the case of the Six Day War, the "asymmetry in the structure of forces" set a time limit on diplomatic efforts that would have no relevance to conflicts involving other sorts of states and armies." (p 85) 76.193.186.22 (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Preventive War and Preemptive War CANNOT be merged
These two forms of warfare cannot be merged by reason of logic and legality. Based upon the clearly stated defenitions of both terms it is very clear that they are not the same. We CANNOT rely on the discursive practices of the Bush Doctrine, that has greyed the differences in the two definitions, in an effort to justify the further expansion of US global primacy. If definitional mergers like this are allowed it will open the door to allow mergers of other terms that carry significant legal weight, such as torture and interrogation and self-defense and murder.
Please do **NOT** merge these, at all. They are entirely and completely different things, and as such, should be in seperate articles with a link. There is a major difference between these two types of wars which needs to be stressed, and as such, they should be seperate. -- Mattworld 00:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed; most modern scholarship seems to prefer maintaining the distinctions between these two. Their Wikipedia articles betray this fact in the opening sections. Leave them unmerged. -- John of New Yawk 23:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree also, and am removing the template, since this debate seems to be over. --172.195.224.212 14:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I don’t understand your reasoning
I’m afraid I don’t understand how one can concluded that by having Bush point out the risk Iraq under Saddam posed sot the united states, that that can somehow be construed as the reason for the iraq war?
As I recall the president stated very clearly three reasons for the Iraqi war: 1. Saddam’s continued failure after 12 years of our existing every other effort to verifiably disarm of WMD and account for what happened to the WMD he did have before the 1991 golf war. If you recall in 1996 we even caught Saddam Red handed producing Bio weapons, after a high ranking Iraqi official defected and told us exactly where to look.
2. Saddam’s Support of International terrorism(Not only does this apply to iraq it apply to the Afghanistan conflict as well, if someone is giving aid to groups waging war on your and allowing them safe harbor with in their country from which to plan and recover from an attack on you, that IS an ACT OF WAR against your country by that country!!! To say other wises would have to concluded the war of 1812, and the conflict in which we chased poncho via back into México in the early 20th century both as preemptive or Preventive wars.)
3. The inhuman treatment of the Iraqi people.
It is my view that this article is Hopelessly Bios, and 1 sided, as it negates the basic principle in warfare, that if one gives aid to thy declared enemy (International terrorism) and allows them a launching pad from ones country for a attacks against this country. Then thy has committed an open act of war against us, as there is no way for us to preserve our own life and defend ourselves without invading and attacking your country which gives harbor and aid to those who attack us.
This is nothing new in warfare, and indeed gives the United States legitimate reason for invading Iran, and Syria, as they are both actively waging war on Iraq and their allies the United States of America, by giving aid and support to terrorist insurgences in that country and refusing to make any attempt at stopping that flow.
If that is not legitimate reason to go to war, then I argue that no such legitimate reason can be looked for if one is to survive, by the natural rules of the world. To impose such a restriction is not only irrational but unjustified, and fundamentally counterproductive, as such a rule only acts as to inshore the morally correct will always lose while the one who seeks to breaks the rules will always win.
In the end, War happens because two sides cannot or will not find anther solution. That is ultimately the reason for war, one can apply limits and rules, but one cannot change its basic nature and/or reason/need by doing so. One can only make moral judgments in an attempt to impose moral limits (rights or wrongs). And if this limit is such the case as to the rules of war, such a restrictions would only serve to do more to harm the good(who follows rules) and aid the evil(who breaks them).
[edit] Misunderstanding of International Legal Issues in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan
Concerning the final section of the article, the author states that the United States would have had legal justification to invade Iraq if the Security Council had found continued violations of past resolutions (most importantly Resolution 687). There are two errors here: one factual, the other regarding international legal thought. The factual error is that the U.N. Security Council did find Iraq to be in "material breach" of past UN resolutions in the first operative clause of Resolution 1441. The error concerning international law is that, even though the Security Council found Iraq to be in violation of UN mandates, such a declaration does not ipso facto authorize the use of force. There is international legal consensus that Security Council resolutions must explicitly mention such authorization before any state may take action against another sovereign state. Furthermore, concerning Afghanistan, the international community strongly supported the U.S. operations in Afghanistan as a valid exercise of self-defense rights. The author must take into account that the UN Security Council reaffirmed the Article 51 right to self-defense twice immediately after the Sept. 11th attacks, the first time in its history that the Council affirmed Article 51.
[edit] Preventive war is not preemptive war
preemptive war an imminent conflict where the enemy commits an act of aggression, or is in the process of committing an act of aggression. preventive war is war caused by the belief conflict is "inevitable" and it is believed that the enemy could pose a threat to the nation. preemptive war is justified, preventive war is a violation of international law and considered international terrorism. The conflict in Iraq is even unjustified as prevetive war, Iraq performed a complete disarmament under the guise of the UN before we attacked. America then changed it's cause for war as humanitarian war. (17:39, 6 May 2006 68.114.229.90)
- Both these articles have problems and IMHO should be merged. I won't be able to do serious work for a week or two on them. I am removing flagrantly false statements in the introduction to this article, that both terms have no generally accepted definition. This is true only of "preventative", and the fact (which should be in the only reference for this article) that "pre-emptive" has had a strict and universally accepted legal definition for 170 years clarifies the meaning of "preventative" somewhat, which is a reason I support the merger. Saying that they should be merged is not saying they are the same by any means, just that confusion is less likely if they are put together, to put each other in relief. John Z4.234.102.166 05:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Put in the addition about "anticipatory" because sometimes these words are used in confusing ways. And my first post above was confusing, because of the following ambiguity of "preemptive". The distinction is sometimes between anticipatory vs. preemptive instead of preemptive vs. preventive, where in the first pair, "preemptive" is used like "preventive" here at Wikipedia. The O'Connell paper has good footnote on this. This is another argument for merger, so we can explain how people use the 3 words for 2 concepts. If there are two articles, the other one should be renamed anticipatory self-defense for clarity, and preemptive should be a disambiguation page.4.234.102.166 06:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I know the footnote in O'Connell that you refer to. Can someone sort out this page as soon as possible? I cannot believe this incorrect information has been allowed to pass. anticipatory v pre-emptive is entirely the correct stance that JohnZ puts forward, as does Prof. O'Connell. WillH
[edit] Reversions
User:Nescio and I have been continually reverting a long "quote dump" that, while perfectly well sourced and relevant, is not encyclopedic in the least. This kind of thing needs to be pared down and summarized. We can't be including long excerpts of news conferences in every article. That is why I wrote something like "commentators as diverse as Noam Chomsky and Dwight Eisenhower have argued..." earlier.
Eleland 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
