Bush's 'Preemptive Attack' Policy Against Iraq Not a Big Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, Says UB Expert on Deterrence

BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Bush's "preemptive strike" policy toward Iraq is mostly rhetoric and does not represent a major shift in U.S. foreign policy, says an expert on deterrence and international relations from the University at Buffalo.

"Bush made a big deal about changing U.S. policy from deterrence to preemptive action, but in practice the new doctrine doesn't really change U.S. policy," says Frank C. Zagare, UB professor and chair of political science. "A strategy of preemption is consistent with U.S. behavior in Grenada, Guatemala, Panama and covertly in Chile and other countries."

According to Zagare, a policy of containment with Iraq has been effective since the conclusion of the Gulf War, which raises questions about U.S. motives for attacking now. He says a decision to go to war with Iraq, without U.N. Security Council approval, could separate the U.S. from its allies--not unlike the way Germany became estranged from Britain, Russia and other world powers because of its aggressive foreign policy prior to World War I.

"The clumsy way the Bush administration has handled the diplomatic aspects of going to war is alienating our allies and their domestic populations," Zagare says. "It may be very difficult to quickly reestablish these relations once the war is over. A war that is waged without broad international support could have the effect of galvanizing an anti-American coalition, which in the long-run would be very detrimental to U.S. interests."