Get started on your Homeland Security Degree at American Military University. |
Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
By Dr. Stephen Schwalbe
Faculty Member, Public Administration at American Military University
In 2002, President George W. Bush launched a preventive attack against Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and destroy Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Operation Iraqi Freedom, fought between 2003 and 2010, was the first time in U.S. history that the nation attacked a country that was not deemed an imminent threat to its existence. This action was labeled the Bush Doctrine.
As a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Hussein and his two sons were eventually killed. However, no WMD were ever located in Iraq.
According to a 2013 study, the estimated cost of the Iraqi war to U.S. taxpayers was approximately $2 trillion, and the amount is expected to rise with residual interest factored in. This figure far exceeds the $80 billion original estimated cost. More than 4,400 Americans were killed and 32,000 were wounded; close to 190,000 Iraqis were also killed.
The Difference between Preventative and Preemptive Attacks
Preventive attacks are launched to destroy an enemy’s potential threat when no imminent attack is present. In contrast, a preemptive attack is one launched in anticipation of immediate aggression by an enemy. Such attacks are legal, according to the United Nations Charter.
A classic example of a preemptive attack was the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, known as the Six Day War. When Egypt blocked the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel called this a blockade and an act of war. Israel launched air strikes against Egypt and its allies Jordan and Syria. Israel quickly won the war.
Bush Doctrine 2.0?
President Trump insists that North Korea cannot retain nuclear weapons. However, North Korea already has at least a dozen such weapons, according to intelligence sources.
The U.S. will not negotiate with North Korea unless its leader, Kim Jong-un, gives up its nuclear weapons and submits to periodic inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In exchange for Pyongyang’s sacrifice of funds, scientific research and manpower, the U.S. will not launch a preventive attack against the North. The Trump administration is essentially proposing a second iteration of the Bush Doctrine.
I have written many articles suggesting a peaceful solution to this standoff. But the reality is that all North Korean nuclear weapons are just heavy, radioactive paperweights, unless there is a realistic way to deliver them to a target.
The only way North Korea can deploy its nuclear weapons against U.S. targets is by using ballistic missiles. So far, Kim Jung-un’s regime has not perfected that delivery system. That is why it conducted multiple intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test launches last year.
A simple solution to the problem, of course, would be to just stop North Korea from launching any more ballistic missiles. These launches are impossible to hide, so they would be fairly easy to detect and prevent.
Last November, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated: “We believe that the ‘dual suspension’ proposal is the most feasible, fair and sensible plan in the present situation.”
By “dual suspension,” China means the cessation of the large-scale combined military exercises conducted multiple times every year by the U.S. and South Korea, in exchange for North Korea halting its ballistic missile launches.
US Should Negotiate with North Korea, Just as South Korea Has Done
The bottom line is that the United States should negotiate with North Korea with no preconditions, just as South Korea has done. We should pursue an end to future North Korean ICBM launches.
In exchange, the U.S. should offer to terminate its annual large-scale military exercises with South Korea. Smaller combined exercises can provide the same military experience and knowledge, so the U.S. sacrifice would be minimal.
Peaceful negotiations are far better than employing the Bush Doctrine and starting a war with North Korea. That war would likely result in millions of people killed or wounded and the devastation of South Korea, the 11th largest economy in the world, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Such a disaster could trigger a worldwide economic crisis.
About the Author
Dr. Stephen Schwalbe is an associate professor at American Military University. He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia College and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Stephen received a Ph.D. in Public Administration and Public Policy from Auburn University in 2006. He was a Defense attaché in Seoul, South Korea, from 1995 to1997.
Comments are closed.