|
A preemptive attack (or preemptive war) is a war waged in an attempt to defeat an imminent offensive or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending war, the intention being to harm the enemy at a moment of minimal protection, for instance while vulnerable during transport or mobilization. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is usually agreed to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive war is more often argued to be justified even though it too represents a clear violation of the UN Charter (specifically Articles 39 and 51 of Chapter VII exclude the use of force except; a) when authorized by the Security Council or b) as self-defense in response to an armed attack). While the labeling of an attack (on strategic and tactical levels) seldom is controversial, it is much more so in regard to the initiation of a war. For propagandist reasons, and in the name of information warfare, an adversary's defensive dispositions may be falsely attributed to an offensive purpose to justify the necessity of one's own attack. One hypothetical example of a preemptive war would be an attack staged against enemy troops, massed at a state's border, that were preparing to invade. The Schlieffen Plan is considered to be an outline for preemptive war, designed to overcome the disadvantage of a potential two-front war with a first strike against a slower mobilizing foe at the first sign of escalating hostilities. Premptive doctrine surfaced once again in World War II. There is a considerable amount of debate over the nature of the Patriotic War, due in large part to the conditions that surrounded the conflict, fought from 1941 to 1945. Factors include territorial aspirations, world view and ideology, militarism and the specific agendas of Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin. While Allied propaganda cast the Nazis as the sole aggressor, Nazi propaganda eschewed these charges and cast the Third Reich as the defender of Europe, launching a preemptive strike in Operation Barbarossa to thwart Soviet aggression. Here, the age-old theme of "invading hordes from the East" was paired with the supposed Communist world takeover scheme to effectively rally many outside the Reich to the Nazi cause. The first few days of the Patriotic War included the Soviet Union's own so-called preemptive strike. Following the June 22 German opening of hostilities through Operation Barbarossa, the Soviet Union began an aerial assault against Finland. From the Soviet point of view, the bombardment of Finnish residential districts on June 25, 1941 served a psychological purpose. However, the Finnish government had declared its intention to remain outside of the war, even its army was mobilized and preparing for both defense and offense. Finland's parliament had confirmed the status of nonbelligerence, but Soviet action contributed to further conflict between the Soviet Union and Finland in the Continuation War. Some commentators have pointed out that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor could be regarded as a preemptive attack. It is the policy of the United States that "preemptive war" or even preventive war may be waged in appropriate circumstances as part of the Bush doctrine.
Pre-emptive strike A pre-emptive strike is a military attack designed to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated attack from an enemy. It could cover all the branches of the military, names the land, air and sea borne forces or may be confined to just one wing. An example is the pre emptive air strike named Operation Focus launched by Israel that sparked the Six Day War. It can also be used to describe any offensive (as opposed to defensive) action that is taken to prevent, or reduce the impact of, an anticipated offensive action by another party. These actions can be either physical or non-physical. The legality of pre-emptive strikes became a particular issue after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq by the USA. Senator John Kerry has called for a "global test" to decide when pre-emptive strikes are acceptable. Substantial opposition against pre-emptive strikes comes from pacifists, countries that have previously been invaded and/or occupied (former colonies including much of the Middle East, the countries that lost the Second World War) and countries caught in the cross-fire of the Cold War, many of whom see US-assertion of a 'pre-emptive strike' not as a defensive measure, but an offensive one. One disadvantage of a preemptive strike is that it eliminates the chance for a peaceful settlement. Unverified intelligence may be used in threat assessments to justify a first strike, and the possibility that bogus intelligence will be introduced into the information stream by supporters of the first strike also creates a problem. A war necessitated by preemption can be followed by subsequent disclosure that the pretexts were false, or falsified. See also | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |