(Page 3 of 3)
But experts say the spirit of the pre-emption policy is driving the Bush administration's Iraq policy. A full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq is not the only way to enforce the United Nations resolutions and, as Mr. Powell made clear today, the administration is prepared to act in the face of allied objections and without the explicit authorization of the Security Council.
Advertisement
A floor lamp that spreads sunshine all over a room
The DVD/DVR Digital Video Recorder easily records non-copyrighted DVDs
Fruit Saver... the most innovative kitchen appliance since the microwave oven
Atomic accuracy in any U.S. time zone
Scientists adapt NASA technology to create "smart bed" sleep surface
The Debate
Differing Views of Deterrence
As the United States has begun military preparations for an attack on Iraq, the pre-emption policy has fueled a wide-ranging debate. One major argument for the policy, administration officials say, is the possibility that a state like Iraq might give weapons to terrorists, who would use them to attack the United States.
A devastating attack might be carried out, but United States authorities would not know who sponsored it. So, the only way to ensure that the United States is defended to is go to the source: the weapon-producing state itself.
"Containment and deterrence goes back to an era when the only use of force we worried about was one in which the use of force could be directly associated with a country, and that country had an address," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "The whole thing that terrorists introduce is that you not only do not see the threat coming but you do not know where it came from."
Critics, like James B. Steinberg, the deputy national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, say Iraq and other countries would be taking a huge risk by giving such weapons to terrorists because the plot might be uncovered. As a result, they say, there is no reason to think they would not continue to be deterred.
In an October letter to Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency said Iraq was unlikely to sponsor a terrorist attack in the United States with weapons of mass destruction as long as the United States did not attack it.
Another argument for the policy is that by using the threat of force to compel Iraq to disarm voluntarily or taking military action against Baghdad if it refuses, Washington will deter hostile states from pursuing weapons programs or supporting terrorists.
"Whichever way it comes out, disarming Saddam of his weapons of mass destruction, demonstrating to people who are trying to follow in his tracks that the world will ultimately cause you to fail, is a very good demonstration," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
Critics say the administration has undercut that message by declaring a policy that is too sweeping.
The administration, they say, has targeted Iraq because it is weak militarily but has all but ruled out force in the case of North Korea, which the C.I.A. says probably has one or two nuclear weapons. Nor is the administration threatening Iran, which is trying to develop nuclear weapons but is caught up in an internal debate over its policy toward the West. The doctrine of pre-emption, they say, applies to only one of the three "axis of evil" states.
"I think one of the mistakes associated with the articulation of the policy is the very fact that it was made a policy," said Joseph P. Hoar, a retired four-star Marine general and the former head of the United States Central Command. "Pre-emptive strikes have always been a possibility for the U.S. government. It is just that it was never made a declaratory statement of policy."
"I am sometimes concerned that the neo-conservatives in Washington are very quick to play the military card," General Hoar added.
Responding to criticism that it has put too much emphasis on pre-emption, Ms. Rice emphasized in an October speech that Washington had understood from the start that pre-emption could only be undertaken with great caution. The speech came at a time when the United States was striving to mobilize support in the Security Council for its Iraq policy.
"The number of cases in which it might be justified will always be small," Ms. Rice said of pre-emption during the speech. "It does not give a green light to the United States or any other nation to act first without exhausting other means, including diplomacy. Pre-emptive action does not come at the beginning of a long chain of effort. The threat must be very grave."
As Mr. Bush prepares for his second State of the Union address, however, officials have signaled that the administration believes it is at the end of that chain in the case of Iraq and is prepared to shed the mantle of multilateral action if it must and act alone.
As Mr. Powell said today, "We will not shrink from war if that is the only way to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction."
