War in Iraq Could Rewrite Rule Book

Aug. 28 -- Anticipatory self-defense sounds like a political oxymoron and reads like ancient riddle: Can a person hit back before the first punch is thrown? In military terms, if a first strike is meant to defend, is it really a first strike?

These are just the questions the White House has to answer — and not just for itself, but for the rest of the world.

While the United States looks for evidence that could link the al Qaeda terrorist network to Saddam Hussein, President Bush is demanding a "regime change" in Iraq and mulling the means to accomplish it.

The option championed by U.S. allies — including, as of last week, Britain — would be to reinstate U.N. weapons inspectors and oust Saddam through stronger sanctions.

But several scenarios for an invasion by U.S. forces have been reported in the last two months and on Monday the White House's lawyers made clear that Bush would not need Congress' approval to send in troops. Also on Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney told a gathering hosted in Nashville, Tenn., by the Veterans of Foreign Wars that Iraq's action and hostility created "an imperative for pre-emptive attack."

Legal scholars say the United States could attack Iraq out of self-defense, even before Iraq fires a single shot at U.S. troops, citing a pre-Civil War military definition that's found a second life in the war on terrorism.

"What we must not do is in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness," Cheney said. "We will not simply look away, hope for the best and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve."

Instant and Overwhelming

Famed American politician Daniel Webster defined "anticipatory self-defense" more than 150 years ago when he wrote that self-defense before an attack was justified if the danger was "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation."

Webster's words followed a 1837 naval skirmish called the Caroline incident, in which a U.S. ship called the Caroline was attacked by the British, just above Niagara Falls. The British said the ship's passengers supported a rebellion in Canada. Webster responded with a letter that laid out his definition. Webster's words were later reaffirmed after World War II during the Nuremberg Trials.