1. To date, what has been the outcome of the American policy asserting the right to preemptive action against Iraq?
2. The UN Charter states that nations may act alone in using force only in self-defense. Is an American attack on Iraq justifiable as self-deffense?
3. Could the strategy of deterrence no longer be relevant to world conditions?
Paragraphs 1) 2) and 4) go to question 1 3) and 5) go to question 2) and the final paragraph ties it all together in response to question, 3) but I've overlapped them in an essay format, so the points really reinforce one another. The quotes are from:
Dworkin, Anthony d 'The 'Bush Doctrine' of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence', Crimes of War Project, August 20, 2002 Noah Feldman, "How Different is Obama than Bush on Terrorism", Foreign Policy, September 3, 2010
The Bush Doctrine on Iraq has been a source of high controversy in international circles, the rationale put forward was succinct, and may be viewed as a rational and imminent extension of the Kissinger policy of Realpolitik.
The doctrine evolved in mid 2002 as an extension of Cold War logic. The argument as presented was that the grounded belief in deliverable weapons of mass destruction ~ allegedly proven in the ...
The solution provides a referenced discussion to answer the three questions listed above (see original problem: American policy, Iraq Invasion & the UN Charter, deterrence).