As the Bush administration attempts to rally support for a U.S. military invasion of Iraq, the world questions whether such an action would be an illegal first strike under international law or an acceptable application of "anticipatory self-defense?"

'Self-Defense' is in the eye of the defender
On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers attacked and destroyed Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor near Baghdad only days before the reactor was set to come online.

Since no state of war existed between Israel and Iraq at the time, and no recent military engagement between the two nations had preceded the attack, Israel came under immediate and sharp criticism from the global community. On June 19, 1981, members of the the UN Security Council -- including the Unites States -- adopted a resolution strongly condemning Israel and finding that "Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered." 

Israeli intelligence, however, knew something before the attack on Osiraq that the global community did not. The world now knows that Saddam Hussein had ordered the reactor built for the sole purpose of producing a significant supply of weapons-grade plutonium. The Osiraq reactor was being used to manufacture nuclear weapons, which in the opinion of Israeli intelligence and military officers, would ultimately be used in an attack against Israel. 

The policy of 'anticipatory self-defense'
Rather than a violation of the loosely defined "rules" of international warfare, Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq was, in hindsight, justifiable under the policy of "anticipatory self-defense" established in 1837 by American politician Daniel Webster. Under the policy of anticipatory self-defense, any nation facing a threat considered to be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation," is considered justified in launching an attack before actually being attacked itself.

First strike is rarely U.S. military policy
Despite the policy of anticipatory self-defense, the United States has historically avoided throwing first military punches. In the case of Iraq, however, President Bush and his top advisers believe a first strike against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is necessary to protect the U.S. from further terrorist attacks. Does Iraq pose an "instant, overwhelming" threat to the United States?

Would U.S. invasion of Iraq really be a "first" strike?
Should the White House be successful in connecting Saddam Hussein to the al Qaeda terrorist network, the argument could be made that a U.S. invasion of Iraq is simply a response to the Sept. 11 attacks, rather than a first strike. 

In a statement clearly suggesting a U.S.-led preemptive first strike, President Bush told West Point cadets in June that "The war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge." 

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

In New York, some 1,400 people have joined in a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein and Iraq claiming that Hussein was responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Bush seeks worldwide support for attack
President Bush has now announced he would seek the support of the U.S. Congress, the United Nations and America's allies before launching an invasion of Iraq. 

On Sept. 4, the president met with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to outline evidence supporting a military invasion of Iraq. Following that meeting, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated, "The President wants to engage in the debate that democracies must go through, in order for the public to fully understand the issues, in order for Congress to play its full role in this issue, and in order for the world to play its role. And so the President will consult, the President will listen, and the President will lead."

Bush will go to the U.N. on Sept.12 to deliver a speech in which Fleischer said the president would present his administration's case that the "best way to promote peace and stability and freedom for the United States ... is by removing the threat that we all face through Saddam Hussein's presence as leader of Iraq."

Where Blair and Britain stand
On Sept. 8, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, after meeting with President Bush, stated that while Britain had "total determination" to deal with Iraq, an invasion demanded broad international support. "This is not simply an American preoccupation, it is our preoccupation. It should be the preoccupation of the entire civilized, orderly international community." he said.

Warning that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to use any weapon of mass destruction at his disposal, Blair stated, "At some point, and I can't say it is going to be next month or even next year, but at some point, the danger will explode."

Building the case against Hussein
Intelligence officers of the U.S. and other countries agree that Iraq, under the direction of Saddam Hussein has developed and continues to develop and stockpile chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Hussein has effectively refused U.N. arms inspectors access to suspected weapons factories within Iraq is positive evidence that such weapons exist, say defense officials.

On Sept. 8, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told a CNN TV audience that Saddam Hussein was "close" to having nuclear capability. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," she said. "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."

Following Bush's Sept. 4 meeting with congressional leaders, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that the White House had recently received information from the U.N. indicating that Hussein "is indeed making progress developing nuclear weapons." 

Calling it a piece of "new information," Fleischer told reporters at a Sept. 6 press conference, "There was a report yesterday about a drone [pilotless aircraft] Saddam Hussein is developing that he did not have during the 1991 war, that is capable of carrying biological agents for the purpose of spraying on populations."

"There already is a mountain of evidence that shows that Saddam Hussein, since the Gulf War and prior to the Gulf War, has sought to develop weapons for the purpose of using them," Fleischer added. "Now, as we saw on September 11th, when our enemies have weapons, they do not hesitate to use them against the American people."