By Jared Jones
Preventing preemptive strikes by the United States was a major theme of Peter J. Dombrowski''s lecture Dec. 4 at BYU.
Dombrowski, an associate professor in the Strategic Research Department at the U.S. Naval War College, spoke at an international forum series for the Kennedy Center for International Studies where he explained reasons why the United States should not adopt preemption into its foreign policy.
'The U.S. should think long and hard about applying preemption into its foreign policy,' Dombrowski said. 'If we adopt preemption, then we go against international laws and policies that we have helped establish.'
Dombrowski referred to a speech given by President Bush in June of 2002 at West Point where Bush announced America''s policy to launch preemptive strikes against potential adversaries.
Dombrowski said Bush''s definition of potential adversaries include terrorists, any group or state that supports and harbors terrorists and Iraq.
'In the wake of Sept. 11, this policy seemed reasonable,' Dombrowski said. 'Preemption is now a part of U.S. foreign policy. I believe this is a mistake.'
Dombrowski based his opinion on legal, moral and political arguments.
He said a nation has the legal right to self-defense according to the UN Charter. However, he said self-defense does not give nations the right to use preemptive force against adversaries.
Dombrowski said a nation could be morally justified in war only when it has the right intention, public authority, probability of success and when war is a last resort.
He said he believes it is difficult for the U.S. to morally claim its right to use preemptive force.
Dombrowski said he believes some foreign states will emulate Bush''s policy of preemption.
'Will the world be safe if other countries adopt preemption and attack before they are attacked?' Dombrowski said. 'A world where preemption is a norm is a world that looks more dangerous to me.'
He said he opposes preemptive force because he questions the United States'' ability to know for certain if a potential adversary is going to attack.
'What if the United States is wrong?' Dombrowski said. 'What if the country wasn''t planning to attack? Do we say sorry after we strike?'
He said he wanted all those in attendance at the lecture to understand that all his comments about preemption are based on his opinions.
'These are the views of myself-not of the U.S. Navy, U.S. government or any other agency,' Dombrowski said.