Pre-emption in a new light

So is there a difference between having weapons of mass destruction, and "pursuing wmd programs?" Well according to Bush, there is apparently no difference. We've been hearing this switch in relationship to Iraq for some time, but it is resurfacing with a vengeance post Hussein "capture." There are two interesting articles you might want to look at discussing this "shift."

Bush revises rationale for Iraq war, Stevenson, International Herald Tribune, 12/18/03.

Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue, Stevenson, NY Times, 12/18/03.

This is a frightening shift when one considers the shift in US military policy to pre-emptive use of force and a legitimate means of "defense." The policy was already scary (and illegal), as it was assumedly based on possession of wmd. Now all a selected "enemy" needs to become a target is to be "pursuing" a weapons program. What does "pursue" mean, and what counts as a "weapons program?" Oh yeah, and who has the right to pursue and who does not?

Who has the largest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? The United States.
Who has the most aggressive weapons development program? The United States.
Who has shown the greatest willingness to attack without being attacked? The United States.
Who (apparently) decides whether a nation has a right to have weapons of mass destruction? The United States.

So the United States now claims the right of pre-emptive attack not only in cases of imminent danger, but under the reasoning that "some day they might pose a threat."

This new shift is huge. For all that I vehemently disagree with the US Congress approval of invading Iraq, it seems that most thought that 1) Iraq possessed highly destructive weapons, 2) had the willingness to deploy them, and 3) had some way of delivering them against US targets. (Don't ask me how they reached that conclusion because I couldn't see that chain of logic. Further, that even if assumption 1 was accurate that 2 was questionable and 3 totally unsupportable.) Now, however, the issue is not the chain above, but the possibility that a nation (or group inside a nation) is thinking about or investigating what might be a weapons program. This moves the issue of pre-emption to a highly speculative and shakey ground. It requires speculative leaps on what is a weapon, what the ultimate purpose might be, and that this assumed pursuit is a threat to the United States.

If you think this is a stretch, and that it can't boil down to a president saying "those folks make me nervous," or evne "I don't like them," then look at Iraq.

Posted by rowan at December 18, 2003 8:40 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |