After the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States the spotlight was placed about the doctrines of preemptive and preventive attacks as a response to al Qaeda’s actions. The national security strategy of the United States was altered by these acts of terrorism and violence. Preemptive and preventive attacks have been a source of debate and discussion in the international arena long before the United Nations was formed after World War II. With the rise of terrorism or guerilla warfare the techniques, methods and doctrines of war have transitioned. Although the traditional means to wage war still apply, the fight against terrorism can involve preemptive and preventive strikes. Therefore, this essay will examine the similarities and differences in these two institutions.
Although the United States policy makers categorize a preemptive attack as one where they have the right to strike when they perceive a security threat. Al Qaeda is a prime example of that and the current situation with ISIS in the Middle East. Academics and scholars, however, have a much more constricted definition of what a preemptive attack entails. This type of action involves a nation staging an attack on an adversary when they feel they are preparing to strike first. Preemption may be an appealing way to engage a foe, because it could enable the conflict to cause damage by striking first or could ward off another attack from that perceived enemy. Until the last decade with the rise of terrorism, preemptive attacks have been quite rare throughout the course of history and preventive attacks have been more popular. An example of its use was Israel’s offensive against Egypt in 1967 that commenced the Six Days War.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Preemptive and Preventive Attacks".
On the other hand, preventative attacks are employed to what is considered to be a much smaller threat. A preventative attack is commence not by the desire to strike first but to see the conflict transpire in a shorter time frame. Reasons for a preventative attack include thinking the other party’s military will become more powerful if allowed more time or it is thought the other party will procure some type of advantage if the threat is not eradicated or abated swiftly. For instance, Operation Iraqi-Freedom is a prime example of a preventative attack.
Preemptive and preventative attacks are certainly not the same. International law has long viewed preemptive attacks can be a form of self-defense, while preventative attacks cannot be considered as such. Both types of attacks, however, really do depend on timing and can also be categorized as anticipatory attacks. What is meant by timing is how long a nation perceives they have before they are attacked first. For example, Daniel Webster stated in 1842 that preemptive war was only a viable option if there was no time to respond in any other way. Other than both depend on timing and can or are used for self-defense, there are no other similarities.
An example to further clarify what preemptive and preventative attacks are as well as how they function is the discussion over whether World War II was a preemptive strike or preventative one. Some historians feel the effects of the Schlieffen Plan pushed Germany into the decision of beginning a conflict. There are numerous other academics, however, who vehemently disagree with this assessment. They contend Germany was indeed waging a preemptive war, but it was only because Russia began to arm themselves for conflict. Still others contend the Germans felt they had no alternative but to strike down the Russians to maintain the world’s political balance and that would be a preventative war. The dominant conclusion on this issue is Germany was very anxious about the power structure in Europe after Russia had finished the military procedures and aims it established in 1912. The nation was concerned about having to fight a war on two fronts if one should break out.
