Abroad, in Search of Monsters to Destroy: The United States and the Future of Preemption

摘要

This study examines the conditions that the United States must set to ensure that the international community will recognize the legitimacy of preemptive actions and avoid recrimination and isolation. Case studies are examined within a framework based on one laid out by the U.S. Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, in the Caroline Case of 1842: imminence, necessity, proportionality, and legitimacy. These evaluation criteria are first used to evaluate three case studies drawn from the Israeli experience: the 1967 Arab- Israeli War, the 1981 Israeli raid on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak, and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Israeli military history is not the subject of this thesis, but the political circumstances that drove them to take these actions are relevant to the discussion of preemption and the reaction of the international community, including the United States. The resulting international isolation resulting from the Israelis' actions in these case studies are indicative of the reaction to be expected from the international community when and if the United States engages in preemptive attacks. These examples also lend themselves to review because they are controversial and set international legal precedents that are relevant to the adoption and execution of the National Security Strategy (NSS) policy of preemption. The same process is then used to evaluate three possible cases of preemption in U.S. foreign policy. One of these, Iraq, is now historical, but the other two, Iran and North Korea, are possible future scenarios: the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a preemptive attack on North Korea, and a preemptive attack on Iran. As in the Israeli case studies, the U.S. case studies consider conventional attack, terrorist attack, and the potential use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by either rogue states or terrorists.