to defend itself and its friends: ôif we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.ö
The doctrine of pre-emption validates first strikes, not solely in a crisis but on the basis of intelligence suggesting that there is or could be a very real threat present in a particular country or in its actions. Falk (2003, p. 273) characterizes it as ôa doctrine without limits, without accountability to the U.N. or international law, without any dependence on a collective judgment of responsible governments and, what is worse, without any convincing demonstration of practical necessity.ö However, it is a doctrine that can be used to explain and justify nation-building and empire.
This view of the doctrine of pre-emption has been criticized by any number of individuals, politicians, and analysts, including political scientists Slajov Zizek (2004, pp. 43-44), who claims that there were three underlying reasons for AmericaÆs attack on Iraq in 2003:
A sincere ideological belief that the destiny of the United States is to bring democracy and prosperity to other nations.
The urge to brutally assert and signal unconditional U.S. hegemony.
The need or desire to control Iraqi oil reserves.
U.S. policy until 2001 focused on maintaining key ceasefire restrictions on Iraq and tacitly encouraging a change of regime to the degree possible without actual intervention (Marr, 2004). This changed dramatically after the 9/11 terrorist attack on America, which fundamentally altered the U.S. policy first, toward Al-Qaeda and then toward Iraq.
The liberation of Iraq, according to Christopher Hitchens
(2003), has long been regarded as a desirable geopolitical event, particularly by the United States as it has sought to extend its influence in the world. Hitchens (2003, p. 51) asserted that ôthe best moral argument for regime change in Iraq is based upon the horrific way in which the Iraqi and...