Preventive war policy looks questionable

Bush has ordered an investigation into intelligence shortcomings.
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
WASHINGTON -- 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 U.S. allies' doubts on the rationale for war, and solidifying opposition to the administration's stated right to pre-emptive 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," said 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 said, "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.
'Lasting schism'
"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, added 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 pre-emptive 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 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.
Importance of intelligence
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 pre-emption."
And in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., former chairman of the Senate 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 pre-empted 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 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 pre-emptive action was impracticable, and while that view has not changed, the emphasis now is on improving relations with the U.S.," said Philippe Moreau Defarges, an international-relations expert at the French Institute for International Relations.