'Preventive War' Doctrine under Siege by Howard LaFranchi Christian Science Monitor 11:26am 5th Feb, 2004   WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb 4 (CSM) - As questions mount around the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the intelligence that was used to justify going to war, one of the first casualties may be the Bush administration's doctrine of preventive war.That is just one way the controversy over the use of intelligence to justify war is likely to impact U.S. foreign policy. Already the wisdom of waging war against a gathering but unexercised threat is being questioned in Congress and among weapons experts.    But the failure to find weapons and the clouds over prewar intelligence are also feeding US allies' doubts on the rationale for war, and solidifying opposition to the administration's stated right to preemptive war.    "People who opposed this war feel vindicated and will feel even stronger about the risks of the doctrine of preventive war, that you have to base it on intelligence that may be flimsy, inaccurate, or can be interpreted in different ways," says Jens Van Scherpenberg at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.    Calling the last year "difficult for everybody," a European diplomat in Washington says, "We see validation of the importance of inspections, the priority of cooperation, and we will emphasize that as the right way to go forward." Still, to the extent the administration holds to its first-strike policy even in the absence of a proven, imminent threat, defining differences between the U.S. and some allies will continue.    "There is a lasting schism" between the U.S. and some of its allies over the use of military force, fed by specific differences over defense spending, adds Mr. Van Scherpenberg. But he and others in antiwar countries say the underlying differences, while too deep to go away, will be played down in coming months as Europe seeks to repair relations with Washington, and Washington continues to press for international help in postwar Iraq.    European leaders may be hoping the White House has learned from what they believe are the pitfalls of preemptive military action--a doctrine first outlined in the Bush administration's national security strategy of August 2002.    Some experts argue that British Prime Minister Tony Blair and even Mr. Bush--will be hesitant to repeat the Iraq venture because of public opposition and political scrutiny. In short, observers note, antiwar leaders may not feel compelled to focus on the doctrine's liabilities since others in Washington already are.    In a televised interview this week, former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said, "If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly can't have a policy of preemption."    And in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Bob Graham (D) of Florida, former chairman of the Sentate Select Committee on Intelligence, said "if we continue to rely on preventive or pre-emptive military actions as a central part of our strategy, it is critical that we have accurate intelligence to justify that the threat to be preempted is imminent."    The added importance of accurate intelligence when it is being used to justify war, and flaws in intelligence on Iraq, are prompting action on both sides of the Atlantic. Bush this week ordered creation of a commission to examine intelligence shortcomings, and Mr. Blair opted for a similar investigation.    Those steps, and others that U.S. allies see as retreats from a first-strike doctrine, or as "peace feelers" toward them, may improve working conditions between allies.    Also easing tensions are recent statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell,first acknowledging that weapons of mass destruction may not have existed in Iraq, and Tuesday stating in an interview that a clear absence of stockpiled weapons might have affected his recommendation for war. Still, he told the Washington Post that he believed Saddam Hussein's Iraq did have an intent and capability that justified action, and that history would vindicate the war.    At the same time, there is hope in some European capitals that the administration is shifting its emphasis to building alliances.    "France always felt the doctrine of preemptive action was impracticable, and while that view has not changed, the emphasis now is on improving relations with the US," says Philippe Moreau Defarges, an international-relations expert at the French Institute for International Relations.    Washington's emphasis last year on war was seen as deleterious to the sharing of intelligence, since governments disagreed on how intelligence should be used. But Mr. Moreau Defarges says Paris wants to heal relations with Washington and, in turn, improve counterterrorism and international economic policies - so the French government will not make an issue of Iraq at this time.    "Look at the recent cancellation of some commercial flights from Paris to the U.S.," he says. "There a strong signal from the French government saying, 'We want to cooperate.' " Though the French are no more likely to go along with preemptive war, he continues, they feel reassured that the U.S. has reached the limit of its own doctrine. "Look at North Korea: That is a more dangerous threat, but the U.S. is not talking about waging war there."    Indeed, though a tougher stance may be required in North Korea, any action would be made more difficult by doubts about the Iraq war, says David Mepham of the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research. "The chance of getting public support will be reduced," he says. "The lack of credibility brought on by going to war in Iraq on the basis of inaccurate intelligence has undermined public trust and made the world more insecure."    February 5, 2004    "Powell may have blown lid off debate over war", by Marian Wilkinson.(Sydney Morning Herald)    The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has lit the fuse on what may prove to be one of the most explosive political debates in the American election.    Have more than 500 US soldiers died in Iraq, thousands more been maimed and US taxpayers been hit with a massive bill because of an intelligence failure?    It began with a simple question during a meeting of Mr Powell and The Washington Post's editorial board on Monday. If the CIA director, George Tenet, told him a year ago what we now know, that there were no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, would he have advised President George Bush to go to war?    "I don't know," Mr Powell said. "I don't know because it was the stockpiles that presented the final piece that made it more of a real and present danger." And, he added: "The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus."    Democrats were stunned by Mr Powell's blunt response and even some Republicans on Tuesday accused him of trying to walk away from Mr Bush's decision to go to war.    Within hours of the paper hitting the streets, Mr Powell was anxiously clarifying his answer, insisting he fully backed the President's decision, even though Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US or any other country.    "There should be no doubt we have done the right thing and history certainly will be the test of that," said Mr Powell after meeting with United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, in Washington to discuss the present Iraqi political crisis.    But in his interview with The Washington Post, Mr Powell went "off script" for one brief moment, conceding the obvious point. If Iraq was not a threat, it is now debatable whether the war, and its enormous cost to America was necessary or whether Saddam Hussein could have been contained.    Until now, Mr Bush, his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice and the whole Administration have insisted the war was justified even though no weapons of mass destruction have been found because Saddam was guilty of "intent" to rebuild his weapons. Mr Powell also pushed this justification with The Washington Post.    And the US public, so far, has backed Mr Bush's handling of the war by a small margin. But Mr Powell's remarks have given many Americans pause and it seems we are now at a critical turning point in the debate over the war.    When the hawkish former chief US weapons hunter in Iraq, David Kay, conceded before the US Congress that there were no stockpiles of WMD and admitted "We were all wrong, probably", Mr Bush was suddenly put on the defensive.    When Dr Kay, with the support of a leading Republican senator, John McCain, called for an outside inquiry into the prewar intelligence, a shell-shocked Mr Bush and Dr Rice took several days to respond.    The White House eventually agreed Mr Bush would sign an executive order setting up an "independent" inquiry.    Mr Bush has insisted the inquiry will not report until after voters go the polls in November to prevent it becoming "politicised".    But the idea that Americans will not want to know the facts before they decide whether to re-elect Mr Bush is implausible. And neither the Democrats or the US media will find this acceptable. It is clear that many people who supported the war are now demanding some answers.
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item