"Pre-emptive Wars vs Good Old Fashioned Invasions " Topic

I guess this is a bit like asking what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, but lets have a go anyway: what is the difference between a pre-emptive war / strike and a good-old fashioned invasion? Is it as simple as pre-emptive strikes are what the 'good guys' do?

It would seem that International Law uses the Caroline Test to assess if such things are justified. This states that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

How many so-called pre-emptive strikes / invasions would pass this?

Also, had, eg. Germany and / or Japan emerged successful in WW2, would their invasions have been remembered as 'pre-emptive strikes'? Indeed, could the attack on Pearl Harbour reasonably be considered a pre-emptive strike?

If not, why is the Boer invasion of Natal / Cape Colony often explained away by their apologists as being one, despite blatantly not meeting any of the Caroline Test criteria?

Was (arguably) the most famous pre-emptive strike of all, the 1967 Six Day War, really one? Or is this view coloured by the West's (general) support for Israel?

No idea why I was unable to cross-post this to the boards in the 20th Century – perhaps Mr Armintrout can assist? WW2 and Modern, if you please.

In IR preemptive war is when you preempt an imminent attack against you. Preventive war is when you attack someone now, because you fear they may attack you in the future. Preemption and Prevention are very diffrent. An old-fashioned invasion has nothing to do with fear of imminent or future attack but is driven by other goals.

The big issues in the debate is how do you capture imminent attack? In 1967 the Israelis had very good hard intelligence that Egypt was preparing to attack. Movement of troops, fueling of aircraft out of the usual routines etc. I am not saying it is not debatable, but the hard data indicated a big change in Egyptian standard operating procedures. But most of the time it is not as clear.

However what would be your hard data proof that the US was preparing an imminent (24-48 hour) attack on Japan that would justify Pearl Harbor as a preemptive attack?

What would be your hard date proof that Poland was preparing an imminent (24-48 hour) attack on Germany?

The debate is an issue because Preemptive War is legal under the UN charter (falling under self-defence) while preventive is illegal.

KTravlos

I am not suggesting for a moment that "I" think Germany or Japan launched pre-emptive wars – only that I imagine they would have been spun as such in the event of victory. I imagine many Germans would have easily believed that they went to war with the USSR because the USSR was about to attack them – indeed, I understand that there is a school of thought today which tries to justify his invasion thus.

Similarly, I imagine many Japanese (rightly or wrongly) felt that they had been backed into a corner and their only chance was a 'pre-emptive' strike.

My queston is: does this mainly come down to perception?

Oh no no, I assure you I did not say you are suggesting it, just what hard facts could you use to back perceptions? Anybody can claim their attack was preemptive. But from a legal point (and a historical one), perceptions are not the issue when it comes to preemption. Hard facts are. So what would be the hard facts that could back up a German or Japanese belief that within 24-48 hours a massive invasion of their territory or strike against the forces would be lunched by Poland or USSR or USA.

Also make sure you are not talking about preventive war. Preventive war is all about perception, since there are no real hard facts. The attack is going to come 1-2, or ten years down the road. Not 1-2 days. At most you extrapolate from current growth or armament trends to the far future.

And of course victors write history, but there is certain level of how much "history: can escape facts.

KTravlos

Yes, I agree and good point. However, take the Boer invasions of British territory in 1899 – there are an example of where hard facts have been cast aside, and (in this case) the losers have been able to paint themselves as the innocent victim, and their invasion has been re-invented by many Apartheid-era / modern-day historians as a 'pre-emptive' strike (or perhaps a preventative invasion, depending on who one reads). Interesting point about the distinction.

Are there other similar examples? FPW? ACW?

Preventive wars?

Well there is debate in WWI historiography on preventive motives among some of the German decision makers and their decision to back Austria even if it meant war with Russia

The US claimed the Second US-Iraq War as preventive.

Both Hitler and Stalin believed they may have to fight a preventive war against each other. Hitler just moved first.

The Russo-Japanese War had preventive motivations for both sides

Preemptive: Very hard to find, since many times that war has already started at lower operational levels.

FPW was not preemptive in any way, nor the ACW.

Some historians believe the DPRK invasion of the ROK was partly preemptive, as the ROK also was planning a war of unification. But the preventive or preemptive character is open to debate.

The Ottoman declaration of war on Greece in 1897 incldes preemptive elements.

Interesting point about the Korean War, considering how scattered and un-prepared the ROK forces were?

I imagine a similar line would have been adopted to justify (eg) a Cold War era Soviet invasion of West Germany: the West were planning to re-unify Germany etc.

I imagine many wars / invasions will contain 'some' preventative elements: the Zulu War of 1879, for example: the large and aggressive Zulu army presented a clear and present danger to the British settlers of Natal. But I'd suggest few today would see it in such terms?

We are coming back to perception again…

few wars period fit the preemptive concept, and almost anything can be called preventive.

Remember preventive is about me attacking you today because I think you will attack me in a year, 2 years, 10 years, 50 years.

This is why Preventive wars are illegal. They are not based on hard facts, they are not based on current behavior, but on potential future behaviour.

This owuld be like the US invading Mexico today, because in 50 years Mexico maybe richer than the US and might decide to attack.

Offensive Realists like John Mearsheimer, eat and breath this concept.

It's a question that can only be correctly appreciated with accurate historical hindsight. Most such actions are led by fear. The fear is usually led by intelligence. Only with a true historical appreciation of the intelligence can a pre-emptive strike be called that. Otherwise, it's just an invasion.

I agree; actual pre-emptive wars are quite rare, in large part because the necessary intelligence is often only available post-hoc

Lots of wars are justified as preventive – look at the great unpleasentness 100 years ago; in The War That Ended Peace and The Sleepwalkers it is quite nicely described how the governments of the respective European powers reckoned that war was inevitable so might as well do it now

One man's clever preemptive strike will always be another man's dirty, underhand sneak attack.

The people watching their homes burning will probably be inclined to call it an invasion.

One of the reasons I retired before the second gulf war. I always saw it as Bush's personal war and wanted no part of it. I signed up to defend my nation and not for anyone's personal vendetta.

Point of order, the attack on Pearl Harbor was supposed to be shortly *after* the delivery of a declaration of war by the Japanese Embassy to the White House. Unfortunately, the entire Japanese Embassy was far too hung over that morning to write/type the declaration perfectly.

Similarly, I imagine many Japanese (rightly or wrongly) felt that they had been backed into a corner and their only chance was a 'pre-emptive' strike.

Yes, there are a lot of Japanese who consider the US's oil embargo in the 1930s to have been an act of war.

You Europeans can probably relate to that, given what happens when Czar Vlad I turns off the natural gas lines in the middle of winter. And remember that the US was the leading petroleum exporter in the 1930s, producing about 95% of Japan's oil supply.

Czar Vlad I turns off the natural gas lines in the middle of winter

What a busy man, Christianizing the pagan Rus, inventing natural gas, turning it off, and then destroying the formula so everybody has to wait a thousand years to buy it again!

Not Vladimir the Great, Vladimir Putin.

If you send a declaration of war moments before launching an attack, I would suggest that still counts as a pre-emptive strike?

No i am afraid, preemptive requires you to be attacking to get the jump over a imminent attack on you. Whether you declare war or not is besides the point. The imminence of an attack on you,which leads you to attack first is what defines it and differentiates it from preventive war.

If the INTEL is strong enough (notice I did not say "good" enough) why would you wait if your enemy can actually hurt you badly? Legality is nice but survival is paramount.

Without seeing the Israeli INTEL documents it is probable that 1967 qualifies but 99.999999999% of the wars seem not to qualify as preemptive under the parameters.

KTravlos

So it seems you are agreeing with my point? Or not?

I was saying that the planned last moment declaration of war was irrelevant (though I do not feel that Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike in any case).

Mute Bystander

Yes – I agree with you, though I think in some cases a nation will claim to fear an invasion / threat to justify their own 'pre-emptive strike' / land grab / military intervention.

And I would suggest that whether or not we sympathise with the nation for doing this is largely down to our world view.

Oh sorry Greenleader, I misread your statement. Yes declarations of war are not relevant. The preemption is only based on imminence of attack. Not even fear of attack is enough. They must be preparing to attack you.

Let me put it this way. The Japanese leadership do not consider Pearl Harbor a preemptive attack, but instead a preventive. They had good reasons to expect a US war within several months or a year, but no good reason to expect a US attack in a day or two. The preventive thinking of the high command is very clear. If people nowdys claim it was preemptive they are doing so to catch the legal cloak. But I must stress that the High Command that ordered Pearl Harbor was working on Preventive thinking, not Preemptive. It may had been very good Preventive thinking, but it was still preventive (fight you now rather than a year down the road when you oil embargo degrades my naval capability).

KTravlos

You have mentioned 'a day or two' a couple of times now, in terms of distinguishing a pre-emptive strike from a preventative one. Is that just a turn of phrase you are employing, or is that the sort of timescale mentioned in International Law / rulings on the subject?

If the latter, I would be interested to know if this period has been adjusted over time: for example, a week was not much notice of an attack 100 years ago, whereas these days, with vastly improvement telecomms and airlift capacity (or whatever), a week's notice would allow a threatened nation to take a lot more action, or for her allies to rush to her defence.
(eg, had the West known of Saddam Hussein's intentions a week before his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 – leaving aside the conspiracy theories that they did! – or had the British known a week before of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands in 1892, they could easily have moved assests there in time. I would suggest that the same would not likely be true in another era).

The Boers gave two days notice of their intention to invade British territories in Southern Africa and, though they did not actually wait until the deadline expired before commencing hostilities, this seems positively quaint today – rather than something approaching a bolt from the blue as it was perceived at the time.

It has been years since my Int. Law classes, but I do remember imminent being very restrictively defined. I do think it was 24-48 hours. You must have resanoble proof of an expected attack taking place in 24-48 hours to be able to claim legal permission for preemptive strike. Declaration of intent is not actually needed.

As for it changing, the answer is no. Why? Simply because the legal distinction between preemptive and preventive war only came about as de jure after 1945. I do not remember the LON having such a rule, though I might be wrong.

I agree that the 1967 Israeli attack was almost certainly pre-emptive.

The US invasion of Iraq was preventive, as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

So is the difference between preemptive and preventive strictly a legal concept post WW2?

And should a nation necessarily be concerned about the level of certainty of the threat – I know unless you actually get a SIGINT/HUMINT confirmation how can you be certain – some nations threaten/posture for political advantage more than an actual invasion.

Yes Mute Bystander. It is largely the case. Though there was a differentiation between defensive and preventive war among early students of international relations, it did not have a substantive impact until Nuremberg. Fundamentally preemptive war is considered defensive war and thus UN legal. Before that it was largely an academic question (though obviously important from an ethical point of view for many people)

Most wars happen in the context of the concept of interstate rivalry (Klein and Diehl etal , Colaressi, Thompson et al). This means that the two combatants already are producing a high level enmity signals. The question is one of abrupt escalation in those signals, and especially hard ones (attacks, movement of troops etc). It is the changing of previously stable (if violent) standard operating procedures that raises the red flag, especially changes that fit your intelligence on war plans.

Ergo why war plans are so secret. Movements that fit in them could be considered as sufficient evidence for preemption.

Ergo why big exercises are publicized to military attaches.

Example: Rumors are that the Greek and Turkish War-plans for a war with each other included a massive move through the Bulgarian borders in order to outflank the heavily fortified Evros line (No idea how voluntary that would be for Bulgaria). Thus in this case it would not be the massing of troops at Evros that would be the red flag, but the movement of reserve troops (especially geek armored units from Thessaloniki, and Turkish troops from Istanbul) towards the Bulgarian borders in addition to that massing that would indicate imminent war.