Opinion | Who Says We Never Strike First? (original) (raw)

Opinion|Who Says We Never Strike First?

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/opinion/who-says-we-never-strike-first.html

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

Oct. 4, 2002

See the article in its original context from
October 4, 2002

Section A, Page

27Buy Reprints

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

In 1587, as Philip II massed a formidable fleet for the invasion of England, Queen Elizabeth did not wait to be attacked. Sir Francis Drake launched a pre-emptive assault and destroyed part of the Armada while it was still anchored in Cádiz. Partly as a result, England won a famous victory the following year.

In 1756, as Austria, Russia and France plotted to crush Prussia, Frederick the Great did not wait to be attacked. He struck first, invading Saxony and Bohemia, and eventually winning important victories against his far more numerous foes.

In 1967, as Arab armies gathered on Israel's borders, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol did not wait to be attacked. Israeli forces struck first and defeated their enemies in just six days.

It is certainly true that pre-emptive wars are not the norm in history. But they are not as rare as President Bush's critics suggest. The president's pre-emption doctrine -- and its first application, in Iraq -- is firmly rooted in centuries of tradition. Although England, Prussia and Israel all technically struck the first blow, the consensus is that they were smart to do so. Contrariwise, who today thinks it was wise of Britain and France to stay their hands in the 1930's when they could have thwarted Hitler's ambitions early on?

Some critics, such as Michael Walzer, the political theorist, argue that the current threat from Iraq is different from and less immediate than those faced in the past. Attacking Iraq now, they argue, would make this a preventive, not a pre-emptive, war, and hence less morally justified. This is a distinction that may have made sense in the past, when mobilization took time and diplomacy proceeded at a slower pace. But today weapons of mass destruction can be used without warning. For this reason, the distinction between pre-emptive and preventive collapses. ''Preventive'' actions like Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility have become essential.

Nevertheless, as Congress and the American people debate war against Iraq, there is unease that pre-emptive war, even to eradicate weapons of mass murder, runs against the American grain. The presumption of those, like Dick Armey, the House majority leader, who have made this argument is that Americans are a generally pacific people who will put down their ploughshares and take up swords only if attacked first. Leave aside the question of whether we can afford for the enemy to strike the first blow when that blow might leave millions dead. What about the historical accuracy of this idea that we are a nation animated by the spirit of Cincinnatus?

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT