Michael Pollak objected:
Huh? I think you're getting carried away on anti-liberal drunkenness, John. The doctrine of pre-emptive warfare is a break from all previous international law, and a dreadful one.
JG replies:
(Actually, it is antihistamines doing the trick, not alcohol.)
As a clearly adumbrated "doctrine," perhaps. As a practical guide to foreign policy, no dice, so far as I can tell.
Without getting into the finer points of international law, about which I know shockingly little, is not the crux of the "pre-emptive war" concept the notion that Country X can launch an offensive attack on Country Y even though Country Y has not attacked Country X and in fact poses no immediate and credible threat to the security of Country X? And is that not precisely the policy directly put into effect by the US in Vietnam (and on a far lesser scale in Grenada, Libya, and Panama, among others) and through subterfuge or by proxy in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, a host of frontline states, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Or is there something beyond a juridical technicality (one that helps to ingratiate the US with its core capitalist junior partners, to be sure) missing here? _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_explore_012009