Introduction
The event of 9/11 changed the way people viewed terrorism from 'an issue over there ' to the sudden realization that terrorist organizations now have the ability to attack globally and are no longer restricted to their region. Although national terrorism is not a new phenomenon given the Munich Olympic incident (Miller 1990, p.12) and several embassy bombings in the decade leading up to 9/11(Hoffman, 2002, p.305), it did directly lead to what we now call the Bush Doctrine. In short, this doctrine is the new U.S. foreign military policy where it gave the president can send military personnel into another sovereign state for the purpose of self-defense through preemptive strikes (Kelnner, 2004, p.422). In other words, removing the threat before the threat materializes. This doctrine ignores the advice of not just several high-end generals (Kellner, 2004, p.418), but also ignors a worldwide protest of over eight million people which at the time was "unprecedented in size, scope, and scale" (Kellner, 2004, p.424). As well, the international …show more content…
As well, even pro-preemptive strike scholars would agree that preemptive strike is only legal and ethical if certain conditions outlined in the Carolina test are met. One of the conditions is that they know that there is a credible threat that is incoming (Case). This is reasonable since if there is no concrete evidence, then it is not necessary to act as the state should probably do more research first. Therefore, considering these two factors, anti-preemptive strike scholars can argue that if a state wants to launch a preemptive strikes against a terrorist group or a state hosting a terrorist group, they should ask for permission first from the (UNSC). This is an approach that Michael W. Doyle, a renowned scholar on international law argues for (Doyle,
The event of 9/11 changed the way people viewed terrorism from 'an issue over there ' to the sudden realization that terrorist organizations now have the ability to attack globally and are no longer restricted to their region. Although national terrorism is not a new phenomenon given the Munich Olympic incident (Miller 1990, p.12) and several embassy bombings in the decade leading up to 9/11(Hoffman, 2002, p.305), it did directly lead to what we now call the Bush Doctrine. In short, this doctrine is the new U.S. foreign military policy where it gave the president can send military personnel into another sovereign state for the purpose of self-defense through preemptive strikes (Kelnner, 2004, p.422). In other words, removing the threat before the threat materializes. This doctrine ignores the advice of not just several high-end generals (Kellner, 2004, p.418), but also ignors a worldwide protest of over eight million people which at the time was "unprecedented in size, scope, and scale" (Kellner, 2004, p.424). As well, the international …show more content…
As well, even pro-preemptive strike scholars would agree that preemptive strike is only legal and ethical if certain conditions outlined in the Carolina test are met. One of the conditions is that they know that there is a credible threat that is incoming (Case). This is reasonable since if there is no concrete evidence, then it is not necessary to act as the state should probably do more research first. Therefore, considering these two factors, anti-preemptive strike scholars can argue that if a state wants to launch a preemptive strikes against a terrorist group or a state hosting a terrorist group, they should ask for permission first from the (UNSC). This is an approach that Michael W. Doyle, a renowned scholar on international law argues for (Doyle,