Having a Pre-Emptive Strike Option Available is a Good National Security Policy: Problem Arises When Deciding if Pre-Emption is Necessary

The President's decision to keep a pre-emptive strike option as part of America's foreign and national security policies has raised the hackles of the left and of the anti-war movement, but only a total fool would take it off the table as some have demanded.

The policy itself isn't the issue; it's deciding under what conditions the policy of pre-emptive strikes or war would be justified.

Situation 1: If North Korea launched a conventional missile attack on Japan and North Korean generals were heard arguing on the radio whether or not to launch their nuclear missiles against Tokyo and at U.S. military bases in Japan and South Korea, would the policy be justified?

Situation 2: If China used nuclear weapons on Taiwanese military bases as it invaded the island, and attacked U.S. Navy ships on the high seas, would the policy be justified if U.S. spy satellites spotted the Chinese fueling and preparing their ICBMs for launch?

Situation 3: If Iran was be seven years away from developing a nuclear bomb, would the policy be justified today?

Situation 4: If another 9/11-style attack occurred, and 300,000 Americans die in the attack, should we attack Syria and Iran and North Korea because they might try to take advantage of the situation?

Going to war over possible threats vs. actual threats are at the heart of the matter. Where is the line drawn?

Situation #1 & 2 would have been provocation enough to turn parts of both North Korea and China into parking lots immediately. The Iranian nuclear program is still a ways off, so immediate military action without significant Iranian provocation would not be justified.

We enter an area which contains lots of gray areas with the "act of terrorism" situation outlined above. In that case, the Axis would have to make threatening moves first; the policy of pre-emption would not be justified unless they threatened U.S. interests following a massive terrorist attack and/or there was solid proof that they were involved in the terrorist action. If they were shown to be involved, it would be an act of war, which puts it into a different category completely. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter would apply there.

This policy must be used in the future with overwhelming evidence to back it up that establishes that the U.S. is in actual mortal peril and facing imminent attack.

If this policy is kept in future Administrations, the U.S. President will have a very unenviable task in deciding these issues, should they arise. May he/she choose wisely.