Can a Preemptive Strike Be Self-Defense?

[FeatherFall]

I have seen everyone in this thread implicitly agree with the two following statements: The initiation of force is always wrong. The initiation of violence is not necessarily the initiation of force. Skylab appears to disagree that "preemptive war" can be a response to an initiation of force, and therefore is itself the initiation of force. This is not what I understand "preemptive war" to mean, so maybe we should tease that out.

This phrase started to be widely used in response to Iraq's noncompliance with UN inspectors. It applied to a war with a regime that was in regular armed conflict with the US for a decade (no fly zone fire, etc), had no moral legitimacy due to its routine violations of the rights of its citizens, and was intentionally violating various agreements meant to insure other nations that it did not have aggressive intentions. In this case, "preemptive war" was not the initiation of force; it wasn't even the initiation of violence. I don't know that I'd even call it a preemptive war.  Maybe this is why we all have some confusion over the term?

Edited January 25, 2014 by FeatherFall

[FeatherFall]

To clarify, I thought pre-emptive war (in the Iraq war context) meant that you were in a sate where large-scale conflict was suspended, but that you expected a resumption of large-scale hostilities to be likely and that the risk of the other side escalating before you outweighed the risks involved in escalating the war yourself.

[Nicky]

I have seen everyone in this thread implicitly agree with the two following statements: The initiation of force is always wrong. The initiation of violence is not necessarily the initiation of force. Skylab appears to disagree that "preemptive war" can be a response to an initiation of force, and therefore is itself the initiation of force. This is not what I understand "preemptive war" to mean, so maybe we should tease that out.

I was responding specifically to SkyLab. I know for a fact (from the "Should we nuke Tehran?" thread), that one of the scenarios he's referring to is a US attack on Iran aimed at preventing them from gaining nukes. 

 

That is why I responded the way I did. Because suggesting that the US doesn't have the moral justification to attack a murderous regime, and using Objectivist Ethics to base that claim on, defies logic.

 

To clarify, I thought pre-emptive war (in the Iraq war context) meant that you were in a sate where large-scale conflict was suspended, but that you expected a resumption of large-scale hostilities to be likely and that the risk of the other side escalating before you outweighed the risks involved in escalating the war yourself.

Let's define "pre-emptive" as an unprovoked strike against any murderous dictatorship, terrorist group or gang, aimed at stopping them from committing further atrocities. Makes no difference who the victims were, or who the likely victims will be. Could be us, could be our friends, could be total strangers who will probably never even thank us. That's a nice, wide definition, hard to misunderstand. 

 

As per the principle stated by Ayn Rand (no man may initiate force against another), such people are categorized as evil, and anyone has the moral authority to wipe them off the face of the Earth, simply because of what they are. No further justification of any kind is necessary. The fact that they violated that cardinal rule (no man may initiate force) on a large scale, is enough. 

 

The notion that they would have to be a threat to me specifically before I should act, is the negation of the idea of principled thought itself. No use having a principled view of good and evil, if I'm only gonna act on it when immediately threatened. Even a mindless animal can act when immediately threatened, it doesn't need moral principles for that. What we need the concepts of good and evil for is to know how to build a whole world in which the good dominates over evil.

 

Obviously, none of this means the US government, by itself, should take on every dictator on the planet. But it does mean it has the moral authority to do so as it sees fit.

[Devil's Advocate]

Yes. The initiation of force is evil, but a preemptive strike can, in certain contexts, be considered retaliation.

Example: Live On Fox News, Kim Jong Un declares war on the U.S., and live video then shows him ordering his military to fire on the Hawaiian island of Oahu.

While his missiles launchers are moving into position, a U.S. Destroyer off the coast launches a preemptive strike, destroying the missile launchers.

The initiation of force was when Kim Jong Un gave the order to attack.

I recognize that when I don't have a government and media I trust, I can be fooled into thinking that a preemptive strike is justified. And since Hussein's WMDs were probably just hawkish politicians, populism, and faulty intelligence, I should be very careful before supporting a preemptive strike. But unless you prove it violates principles, I'll keep it in my self-defense bag of tactics.

 

Exactly, and softwareNerd is correct to point to the confusion surrounding the meaning of preemption in the context of self-defense (post #8).  Aggressive actions present a clear and present danger, and one needn't be fired upon prior to initiating ones defense, i.e., striking back.  Your OP (original post) describes an act of aggression so taking out the missile launchers (for what other purpose did they represent?) wasn't preemptive in the context of being aggressive;  if the threat is real, the response isn't an initiation of aggressive force.

[Skylab72]

I was responding specifically to SkyLab. I know for a fact (from the "Should we nuke Tehran?" thread), that one of the scenarios he's referring to is a US attack on Iran aimed at preventing them from gaining nukes. 

 

That is why I responded the way I did. Because suggesting that the US doesn't have the moral justification to attack a murderous regime, and using Objectivist Ethics to base that claim on, defies logic.

 

 

 

Let's define "pre-emptive" as an unprovoked strike against any murderous dictatorship, terrorist group or gang, aimed at stopping them from committing further atrocities. Makes no difference who the victims were, or who the likely victims will be. Could be us, could be our friends, could be total strangers who will probably never even thank us. That's a nice, wide definition, hard to misunderstand. 

 

As per the principle stated by Ayn Rand (no man may initiate force against another), such people are categorized as evil, and anyone has the moral authority to wipe them off the face of the Earth, simply because of what they are. No further justification of any kind is necessary. The fact that they violated that cardinal rule (no man may initiate force) on a large scale, is enough. 

 

The notion that they would have to be a threat to me specifically before I should act, is the negation of the idea of principled thought itself. No use having a principled view of good and evil, if I'm only gonna act on it when immediately threatened. Even a mindless animal can act when immediately threatened, it doesn't need moral principles for that. What we need the concepts of good and evil for is to know how to build a whole world in which the good dominates over evil.

 

Obviously, none of this means the US government, by itself, should take on every dictator on the planet. But it does mean it has the moral authority to do so as it sees fit.

I seem to have expressed the idea weakly.  The KEY idea I intend to convey is,

"Any sequence of behaviors that convince me as a skeptical observer that you are both able and intend to cause me mortal harm, is adequate initiation of force for me to retaliate." Nicky, I apologise if it was not clear that includes all the capable despots on our planet.

[Nicky]

Exactly, and softwareNerd is correct to point to the confusion surrounding the meaning of preemption in the context of self-defense (post #8).  Aggressive actions present a clear and present danger.

Every dictator on the planet has engaged in aggressive action. That's what makes them dictators. If the US attacks a random dictator, it is not retaliating in response to that action. 

 

There is no US doctrine that states that the US will retaliate against all aggressive action. If there was, it would be engaged in thousands of wars across the world. 

 

The doctrine is either preemptive action, against people who, as evidenced by their past aggression against others, and current capabilities, present a threat to the US that is yet to materialize in any kind of aggressive action directed against the US, or not even that: often, the doctrine is action motivated by justice (under the assumption that justice globally is in the interest of the US, in an abstract rather than direct way - meaning the tyrant in question might never be a realistic direct threat to the US, but his mere existence is a threat to the principles which allow for a peaceful world).

 

The use of the word "preemptive" is appropriate, and "retaliation" would be wrong. And still, such actions are morally justified according to Objectivism. That conclusion is the logical consequence of the principles I quoted above. It is also a conclusion Ayn Rand stated explicitly, many times.

 

To restrict the options of good people to "retaliation", be it against getting hit or a direct threat, on principle, is giving evil free reign over anyone unable to defend themselves. Within a nation state, not only do such restrictions on when justice may be enacted not exist, but in fact mechanisms are in place to punish all aggressive action immediately. Obviously, that's not possible on a global scale when the US is pretty much the only country interested in defending the victims of tyrants (it might be, if enough countries joined in, and the world would be better for it), but the next best thing is for the US to pick and choose where it acts based on where such actions have the most impact. 

Edited February 3, 2014 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

OK, but my comments specifically address the OP.  In the given example a declaration of war has been issued, missiles armed and targets selected.  This is quite a bit different than responding to random dictators who aren't in the process of initiating a first strike against us.  I think your comments are generally correct, but not applicable to what I stated.

 

A better example might be to point to the recent act of "preemption" against Iraq, where an "objective" threat was identified and presented to a world court...  "we don't want a smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud"... Only after the action was completed, we failed to produce the supposed gun that was presumed to be "smoking".  So I think it's prudent to correctly identify an act of "preemption" as responding to an actual rather than imagined initiation of force against us.  The Cuban missle crisis comes to mind as a more legitimate kind of response...

Edited February 3, 2014 by Devil's Advocate

[softwareNerd]

So I think it's prudent to correctly identify an act of "preemption" as responding to an actual rather than imagined initiation of force against us.

I'd amend this a bit. A threat is threatening enough if we can rationally and objectively conclude that the person has the means and intent to go forward with it. If the person is bluffing, the threat remains real enough for us to act on it, even if it was not real to a theoretical person with omniscience.

So, when someone points a gun at a cop, pretending to fire, he will probably end up dead even if there were no bullets in the gun.

Sadaam's problem was that he wanted to deny having WMDs in a way that would be accepted by folk like the U.N., while he still wanted states with spies inside his regime to think that he had them. He always saw his biggest threat as Iran, and wanted Iranians to think he had WMDs. Senior people in his administration thought he had them, and -- thus -- spies thought he had them. He miscalculated what the U.S. would do.

Edited February 3, 2014 by softwareNerd

[Nicky]

Good examples would be US intervention in Libya, or the threat of military action in Syria, or US actions in Kosovo, Uganda, , recent French interventions in Africa, etc.

 

In all of those situations, the US/France hasn't acted to counter threats, it acted based on a far more abstract philosophical stance, by which there is good and evil in the world, and good people should root out evil whenever possible, as an act of self preservation, long before evil becomes an actual, direct threat (there is also a dose of altruism in there, especially in the overt statements politicians make, but the facts don't support the theory that they are actually motivated by pure altruism: these wars are way too conveniently chosen, to think that there is no self-interest involved when a nation like France or the US picks a fight; I think that if isolationism were a realistic option for preserving peace and safety within one's borders, altruism wouldn't be enough of a motivation to cause these politicians to send troops abroad).

 

That is preemption, not retaliation. I think "preemption" is a better term for US actions in Iraq as well, even if we accept US statements about Saddam's capabilities and intentions as honest mistakes. Hussein wasn't bluffing that he intended to attack anyone, he was bluffing that he had the means to inflict serious casualties in a potential regional war (against Iran or Israel). US actions were aimed at preventing that potential from ever becoming an actual.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Nicky

[Devil's Advocate]

@ softwareNerd & Nicky,

 

If preemption means to prevent an attack by disabling the enemy, then the presumption is:

1) there is an enemy with a history of aggression,

2) that enemy is in the process of continuing to aggress.

 

Therefore by common definition, preemption is responding to a clear and present (active) danger.   I believe it's clear that a preemptive strike against an aggressive opponent is acting to counter an existing threat, and even if you philosophically recognize the threat is evil, you are still countering (responding) to evil (aggression).  The bottom line is preemption when justified by a valid threat isn't an act of aggression; it's defensive.

 

To get back to the OP, the legitimacy of a preemptive strike depends on it being defensive.  As to whether a preemptive strike must be an act of self-defense, there's plenty of ethical room to act on the behalf of a victim of aggression, by claiming the security of a friend/ally/stranger makes ones own life more secure.

--

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me." ~ pastor Martin Niemöller

--

The preemption of a real threat isn't an act of aggression, and the gun needn't be pointed at you in order to act self-defensively.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Devil's Advocate