This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. Limited Electronic Distribution Rights Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details For More Information This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. 6 Jump down to document THE ARTS CHILD POLICY CIVIL JUSTICE EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SUBSTANCE ABUSE TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution Support RAND This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited KARL P. MUELLER JASEN J. CASTILLO FORREST E. MORGAN NEGEEN PEGAHI BRIAN ROSEN STRIKING FIRST Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2006 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2006 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org Cover design by Pete Soriano The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003. Further information may be obtained from the Strategic Planning Division, Directorate of Plans, Hq USAF. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Striking first : preemptive and preventive attack in U.S. national security policy / Karl P. Mueller [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3881-8 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. National security—United States. 2. Preemtive attack (Military science) 3. United States—Military policy. 4. United States—Defenses. I. Mueller, Karl P. UA23.S835 2006 355'.033573—dc22 2006016181 iii Preface Following the terrorist attacks against the United States on Septem- ber 11, 2001, preemptive and preventive attack became the subjects of extensive policy attention and debate as the nation embarked on a global campaign against al Qaeda, associated terrorist groups, and their sponsors and supporters. U.S. leaders recast the national secu- rity strategy to place greater emphasis on the threats posed by violent nonstate actors and by states from which they might acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, and promised that the United States would take advantage of opportunities to strike at potential adversaries before they attacked. In response to this shift in policy emphasis, RAND Project AIR FORCE conducted a study, titled “Preemptive and Preventive Mili- tary Strategies in U.S. National Security Policy,” to examine the nature and implications of this doctrine of preemption. is study focused on addressing three central questions: First, under what conditions is preemptive or preventive attack worth considering or pursuing as a response to perceived security threats? Second, what role should such “first-strike” strategies be expected to play in future U.S. national secu- rity policy? Finally, what implications do these conclusions have for planners and policymakers in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) and the other armed services as they design military capabilities and strategies to sup- port national policy and deal with emerging security threats in the next decade? e research reported here was sponsored by the Director of Oper- ational Planning, Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, and conducted within the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND Project AIR FORCE. iv Striking First RAND Project AIR FORCE RAND Project AIR FORCE (PAF), a division of the RAND Corpo- ration, is the U.S. Air Force’s federally funded research and develop- ment center for studies and analyses. PAF provides the Air Force with independent analyses of policy alternatives affecting the development, employment, combat readiness, and support of current and future aero- space forces. Research is conducted in four programs: Aerospace Force Development; Manpower, Personnel, and Training; Resource Manage- ment; and Strategy and Doctrine. Additional information about PAF is available on our Web site at http://www.rand.org/paf. Contents v Preface iii Figures and Table ix Summary xi Acknowledgments xxvii Glossary xxix CHAPTER ONE Striking First: Preemptive and Preventive Attacks 1 Introduction 1 e Doctrine of Preemption and the U.S. National Security Strategy 3 Preemption and Prevention 6 Preemptive Attack 6 Preventive Attack 8 Anticipatory Attack 10 Anticipatory Attack Versus Operational Preemption 14 Studying Preemptive and Preventive Attack 15 CHAPTER TWO e Best Defense? When and Why States Strike First 19 Introduction 19 Prevention and Preemption in International Politics 20 Preemptive War and First-Strike Advantage 22 Preventive War and the Balance of Power 29 e Costs, Benefits, and Risks of Anticipatory Attack 32 e Advantage of Striking First 33 e Certainty of the reat 36 Weighing the Pros and Cons of Anticipatory Attack 38 CHAPTER THREE Attacking in Self-Defense: Legality and Legitimacy of Striking First 43 e United States’ View of Anticipatory Attack 43 International Law 48 Legal Use of Force 50 Force Authorized by the Security Council 51 Self-Defense 52 Proportionality 54 Necessity 55 Alternative Standards for Anticipatory Self-Defense 59 Anticipatory Attack Against Nonstate Actors 66 Entering Other States to Attack Nonstate Actors 67 e Significance of Legality 71 e U.N. Security Council 74 e International Court of Justice 74 e International Criminal Court 75 Legitimacy 86 Conclusion 89 CHAPTER FOUR Preemptive and Preventive Strategies in Future U.S. National Security Policy: Prospects and Implications 91 Striking First: Rhetoric and Reality 92 Changing Perceptions of Power and reats 93 Persistent Obstacles to Striking First 94 Anticipatory Attacks After Operation Iraqi Freedom 96 Anticipatory Attack in Future National Security Strategies 98 Leading Scenarios for U.S. Anticipatory Attack 99 Foiling or Blunting Cross-Border Aggression 99 Striking Violent Nonstate Actors to Avert Terrorism 101 Attacking States to Limit the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction 103 vi Striking First Political Consequences of Anticipatory Attack 105 Anticipatory Attack and Future U.S. Defense Planning 107 Anticipatory Attack as a Niche Contingency 107 Intelligence Requirements for Striking First 109 Other Military Capabilities for Anticipatory Attack 112 e Importance of Operational Preemption 114 Dangers of Relying on Preemptive and Preventive Attack 115 Preemptive Attack as a reat to the United States 116 e Nexus of Politics and War 118 APPENDIX A U.S. Preventive Attack Cases 121 U.S. Consideration of Preventive War Against the USSR 121 U.S. Consideration of Preventive Attack Against China 152 e Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 171 e Invasion of Grenada, 1983 182 APPENDIX B Israeli Preemptive and Preventive Attack Cases 189 Introduction 189 e Sinai Campaign, 1956 191 e Six-Day War, 1967 198 e October War, 1973 206 e Osirak Raid, 1981 211 APPENDIX C Counterterrorist Anticipatory Attack Cases 219 Introduction 219 e Israeli Assassination Attempt Against Khaled Mishal, 1997 220 e Tirana Raids, 1998 229 Hellfire Strike in Yemen, 2002 241 e Jordanian Crackdown in Ma’an, 2002 256 Contents vii viii Striking First APPENDIX D NSS Statements on Preemptive and Preventive Attack 267 References 271 [...]... ONE Striking First: Preemptive and Preventive Attacks The best, and in some cases, the only defense, is a good offense —Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld1 Introduction In the months following the terrorist attacks against New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the United States progressively recast its national security policy Probably the single most prominent feature of this process, and. .. an attack s legitimacy (unlike its legality) may also change over time, and vary among different audiences Summary xvii Striking First in Future U.S National Security Policy The post-2001 U.S doctrine of anticipatory attack is cast in deliberately ambiguous terms, and the National Security Strategy does not even raise the possibility of striking first against targets other than terrorists or hard-to-deter... was a classic preventive attack, as was Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S .- led invasion of Iraq in 2003 Preemptive and preventive attacks have important differences; in addition to those already noted, international law holds that truly preemptive attacks are an acceptable use of force in self-defense, while preventive attacks usually are not However, they are driven by similar logic, and since it is often... them Instead, it is the probability of carrying out particular types of anticipatory attacks against specific xxii Striking First adversaries that should be taken into account when investing in military capabilities (See pp 108–109.) Anticipatory attack strategies place high demands on strategic intelligence capabilities For preemptive strategies, assessing the inevitability and imminence of the enemy attack. .. enforced against U.S officials and military personnel involved in planning, ordering, or participating in an attack that is deemed to be illegal In general, the use of force is legal in international politics only when it is necessary for national or collective self-defense, or is authorized by the United Nations Security Council Because the latter is highly unlikely in cases of preemptive or preventive attack, ... the anticipatory attack than if the adversary attacks at the time and in the way of its choice is in large part a military question If attacking promises great success while defense is unpromising, the first-strike advantage will be large When considering preempting an imminent threat, it is the benefits and costs of literally striking first, and of being struck, that matter For preventive attacks, the consequences... other is not being confident about what the future holds because this is genuinely uncertain The first tends to dominate in cases of imminent threats, while in seeking to prevent longer-term actions, existential uncertainties become more powerful Weighing the Pros and Cons of Anticipatory Attack If striking first appears highly advantageous against a seemingly certain threat, anticipatory attack becomes... benefits to take into account, and considerations of law and morality are often intertwined with these political concerns xiv Striking First The Certainty of the Threat If there is a first-strike advantage, the second major factor in deciding whether to launch an anticipatory attack comes into play: The degree of certainty that the enemy attack that it is intended to avert is otherwise inevitable If it... enemy attack was imminent to strike first Preemption, Prevention, and Anticipatory Attack Although the NSS and other U.S policy statements use the term “preemption” to refer to striking first against perceived security threats under a variety of circumstances, generations of scholars and policymakers have defined preemption more restrictively, distinguishing it from preventive attack Preemptive attacks... China, Australia, and even Japan.7 This study examines preemptive attack and preventive war as strategic options available to states facing apparent threats to their national security, especially the United States—thus it is both more and less than a detailed study of current U.S national security policy It focuses on identifying factors and conditions that affect the likelihood of preemptive or preventive . anticipatory attack is cast in deliber- ately ambiguous terms, and the National Security Strategy does not even raise the possibility of striking first against targets other than ter- rorists or hard-to-deter. hard-to-deter states possessing or pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Yet these are categories that encompass the most serious threats likely to face the United States during the near to medium term,. Bush and administra- tion officials announced that under some circumstances in the future the United States would strike enemies before they attack, because deterrence and defense provide insufficient