Essay Sample on Preventive War

Introduction

Preventive war involves a military action that is taken to avert a neutral or belligerent party from gaining the capacity to attack. The party being attacked most likely shows the intent to attack or carries a latent threat. The party carrying out the military action does so to barricade any future attack. These forms of wars are done to forestall any attempt to shift the existing status of power. Some of the attacks are carried out strategically before the balance of power shifts in favor of the targeted party. Preventive war evokes different opinions. The paper will discuss the conditions that were used to justify preventive wars.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Proponents of preventive wars insist that such military actions are necessary in the post-September 11th world. Again, proponents advocate that preventive war has been used all through American history only that it gained relevance in the age of unconventional war tactics (Fearon 1995, p.392). On top of that, such wars have been used to prevent aggressive parties from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

On the other hand, critics form a consensus that the war goes against the accepted doctrines of international law. Perpetrators of the war act without a legal basis. Moreover, the United Nations High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change rejected the concept outright by claiming the entire idea lacks straight forward rights (Brandt 1972, p.45).

Preventive war has been used severally in history. During World War II, the Axis routinely attacked neutral countries on prevention grounds. The Axis began the attack by invading Poland. Germany also attacked Norway and Denmark claiming that the countries could be used by Britain as launching points or prevent the supply of strategic materials. Another famous preventive war was the attack by the Empire of Japan on Pearl Harbor to advance their position.

The Concept of Preventive Wars

The Council of Europe and observer states oppose preventive wars as a unilateral recourse that is unlawful under international laws. From their point of view, it harbors considerable risks that are necessary for maintaining international peace and security. Additionally, the entire concept of preventive wars undermines the legitimacy and relevance of the United Nations Security Council in such matters (Farrell 1990, p.308).

On the other hand, preventive war acts on substitute of United Nations to enable the Security Council in acting effectively to prevent and stop gross violation of human rights such as genocides or ethnic cleansing (Luban 2004, p.211). Preventive war can be used to protect citizens in a country if it is not willing or able to protect them. In another context, this form of war tames party that is capable of acquiring weapons of mass destruction where the United Nations Assembly is unwilling to enact the 'principle of the responsibility to protect.'

After the end of the Second World War, the international law stipulated that states should not engage in military actions unless the said states are provided with explicit permits by the United Nations Security Council. However, the United States overstretched the provisions of self-defense by engaging in preventive war to attack Afghanistan for colluding with and harboring terrorists. United State also justified the Operation Enduring Freedom to pre-empt future attacks from Iraq a rogue nation said to possess weapons of mass destruction.

Dissecting the Justifiability of Preventive War

Political Scientists believe that Preventive war capitalizes on the incompetence of preemptive war. Preemptive war is a doctrine where a country wages war on another country when an enemy attack is already underway, or it perceives the attack to be undoubtedly imminent (Gray 2007, p.8). The concept traces its history with the notable justification for preemption issued by U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1842. He faulted the British military initiative in attacking the steamboat Caroline in 1837 close by Niagara Falls. As such, preemption must be done on formidable grounds that a war is imminent and unavoidable. It is a matter of which country attacks or gets attacked first (Gray, 2007, p.9).

The first justification of Preventive war is that it is meant to "deter "future instances of attack from another country or groups of warring parties such as terrorist. One of the most popular instances of Preventive war was the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Normally known as the "Bush Doctrines," the then Bush led administration justified their reasons of waging war against the Saddam Hussein administration despite lacking evidence of a preemptive attack. (Crawford 2009, p.30). Justifications were given to support the American Invasion of Iraq. The attack was preceded by the terrorists' attacks on the Twin Towers that left thousands dead. As such, many political pundits are of the idea that Bush's administration was attacking Iraq as a form of response to all its enemies. However, the White House gave a different justification of their preventive war in Iraq. First, the National Security Statement (NSS), issued a statement that implied that the Iraqi administration was assembling weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which they believed would be used against America and its allies (Gray 2007, p.12). Even though humanitarian reasons and legal reasons seemingly motivated the invasion, it was apparent that the US government was keen on "unearthing" the nuclear weapons in Saddam's possession.

In a classic preventive war scenario, the administration believed that if it would sit back and bank on UN to tame Iraq then, sooner or later, America would be littered with biochemical we4aopns that would be detrimental to its citizens (Luban 2004, p. 2007). Further, it was not deniable that preventive war at the moment was deemed necessary since the reliance on the United Nations Security Council solely to check the use and development of nuclear weapons had proven futile. The council had consistently demonstrated to enable even to control terrorist organizations and militant groups. (Delahunty 2009, p.845).

References

Brandt, R.B., 1972. Utilitarianism and the Rules of War. Philosophy & Public Affairs, pp.145165.

Farrell, D.M., 1990. The justification of deterrent violence. Ethics, 100(2), pp.301-317.

Fearon, J.D., 1995. Rationalist explanations for war. International organization, 49(3), pp.379414.

Luban, D., 2004. Preventive war. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(3), pp.207-248.