The Slippery Slope to Preventive War by Neta Crawford
The Slippery Slope to Preventive War by Neta Crawford is a notable conception of violence, terrorism, and war. Herein, Crawford asserts that the preemptive doctrine of the George W. Bush reign is full of flaws and could probably be considered a morally wrong approach to preventing violence. The main concern with this approach is that it does not distinguish between terrorism advances meant for harm and rogue states with no harmful intentions.
Undoubtedly, the USA has every right, as is the case with other nations, to be self-defensive and that, the main challenge with terrorists is that there is no ubiquitous sound approach to defending against this harm and other conceivable strategies. I agree with the author’s assertion that, given these circumstances, the only approach to addressing the issue of terrorism is taking the war to them, and that is precisely what the United States is doing, to be considered as a self-defensive approach of preemptive nature.
Drawing from the author’s stance on preventive, I argue that, in particular, a genuine preemptive war necessitates the affected nations to recognize that possible attackers have both the ability and the goal of inflicting considerable harm to you in the coming days. Notwithstanding, whereas ability might not be disputed, the drive and aims of a potential foe might be misjudged. In particular, nations could prepare in what may seem, by all accounts, to be forceful approaches given their fright or in light of their aggression. A preemptive convention that has, due to incredible dread and a craving to dominate the global climate, turn out to be a preventive war tenet of killing potential dangers that may emerge sooner or later, is probably going to surmount to more dreadful and forceful states.
The vast self-origination of the U.S could prompt a propensity to mediate wherever that this more noteworthy self may be in danger of, for instance, losing admittance to business sectors. Hence, the origination of the self that legitimizes a genuine preemptive move in self-preservation needs to be restricted to impending dangers to life and wellbeing inside the nation or the life and soundness of netizens across the border.
One would argue that, whereas distinctions in terminologies may be employed in clearly defining concepts, the same can be applied in distorting or reinterpreting the meaning of preemption in war (just as most individuals are pointing fingers to the George W. Bush administration). Case example, drawing an obvious correlation with impending self-defense or a preemptive move would be considered misleading, based on the fact that preventive war is different from all these actions. Whereas preemption features some link to these concepts, it does not slide to any.
I conclude by revisiting the jus ad bellum aspect of the “just war theory”, herein conducting a review of its possible application as a more intentional and transparent approach in acknowledging ways in which to react in a legal, impartial, and morally justifiable nature to future terrorist threats. The principles in this theory retain notable significance to conservative armed conflicts; however, their credibility as a framework for evaluating the rationalization for unorthodox operations might be minimal. Employing the model of preemption in war as a model of government policy presents great limitations to international law, as the limitations are huge enough to undercut or spearhead the collapsing of international law. A good practice would be implementing the model of hegemonic exceptionalism in appeasing anxieties about global anarchy as a notable approach to safeguarding against the broad-gauge abuse of this principle.
