Editing Preventive war (section)

==Examples==
The [[Axis powers]] in [[World War II]] routinely invaded neutral countries on grounds of prevention and began the [[invasion of Poland]] in 1939 by claiming the Poles had attacked a border outpost first. In 1940, [[Operation Weserübung|Germany invaded Denmark and Norway]] and argued that Britain might have  used them as launching points for an attack or prevented supply of [[strategic materials]] to Germany. In the summer of 1941, [[Operation Barbarossa|Germany invaded the Soviet Union]], inaugurating the bloody and brutal land war by claiming that a [[Judeo-Bolshevik]] conspiracy threatened the Reich. In late 1941, the [[Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran]] was carried out to secure a supply corridor of petrol to the Soviet Union. Iranian Shah [[Rezā Shāh]] appealed to US President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] for help but was rebuffed on the grounds that "movements of conquest by Germany will continue and will extend beyond Europe to Asia, Africa, and even to the Americas, unless they are stopped by military force."<ref>''Sunrise at Abadan'', Stewart Richard pp 94–108</ref>

===Pearl Harbor===
{{Main|Attack on Pearl Harbor|Events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor}}
Perhaps the most famous example of preventive war is the [[attack on Pearl Harbor]] by the [[Empire of Japan]] on December 7, 1941.<ref name="bakerinstitute.org">J. Barnes, R. Stoll, "PREEMPTIVE AND PREVENTIVE WAR: A PRELIMINARY TAXONOMY", p.15, THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY, [http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/Preemptive%20and%20Preventive%20War-1.pdf URL] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101123064942/http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/Preemptive%20and%20Preventive%20War-1.pdf |date=2010-11-23 }}</ref> Many in the US and Japan believed war to be inevitable. Coupled to the crippling US economic embargo that was rapidly degrading the Japanese military capability, that led the Japanese leadership to believe it was better to have the war as soon as possible.<ref name="bakerinstitute.org"/>

The sneak attack was partly motivated by a desire to destroy the [[US Pacific Fleet]] to allow Japan to advance with reduced opposition from the US when it secured Japanese oil supplies by fighting against the [[British Empire]] and the [[Dutch Empire]] for control over the rich East Indian ([[Dutch East Indies]], [[Malay Peninsula]]) oil-fields.<ref>Keith Crane, ''Imported oil and US national security'', p. 26, Rand Environment, Energy, and Economic Development (Program), International Security and Defense Policy Center</ref> In 1940, American policies and tension toward [[Military history of Japan#Showa Period - World War II|Japanese military actions]] and [[Japanese expansionism]] in the Far East increased. For example, in May 1940, the base of the US Pacific Fleet that was stationed on the [[West Coast of the United States|West Coast]] was forwarded to an "advanced" position at Pearl Harbor in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]].

The move was opposed by some [[US Navy]] officials, including their commander, Admiral [[James Otto Richardson]], who was relieved by Roosevelt.{{citation needed|date=July 2010}} Even so, the [[Far East Fleet]] was not significantly reinforced. Another ineffective plan to reinforce the Pacific was a rather late relocation of fighter planes to bases located on the [[Pacific islands]] like [[Wake Island]], [[Guam]], and the [[Philippines]]. For a long time, Japanese leaders, especially leaders of the [[Imperial Japanese Navy]], had known that the large US military strength and production capacity posed a long-term threat to [[Japanese expansionism|Japan's imperialist desires]], especially if hostilities broke out in the Pacific.{{citation needed|date=April 2008}} War games on both sides had long reflected those expectations.

===Iraq War (2003–2011)===
{{Main|Criticism of the Iraq War|Rationale for the Iraq War}}
The [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] was framed primarily as a [[preemptive war]] by the [[George W. Bush administration]],<ref>David E. Sanger, "Bush's Doctrine for War," ''N.Y. Times,'' March 18, 2003 at A1</ref> although President Bush also argued it was supported by Security Council Resolutions: "Under Resolutions 678 and 687—both still in effect—the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."<ref>"Bush's Speech on Iraq: 'Saddam Hussein and His Sons Must Leave,'" ''N.Y. Times,'' March 18, 2003 at A 10.</ref> At the time, the US public and its allies were led to believe that [[Ba'athist Iraq]] might have restarted its nuclear weapons program or been "cheating" on its obligations to dispose of its large stockpile of [[chemical weapons]] dating from the [[Iran–Iraq War]]. Supporters of the war have argued it to be justified, as Iraq both harbored [[Islamic terrorist]] groups sharing a common hatred of the United States and was suspected to be developing [[weapons of mass destruction]] (WMD). Iraq's history of noncompliance of international security matters and its history of both developing and using such weapons were factors in the public perception of [[Iraq and weapons of mass destruction|Iraq's having weapons of mass destruction]].

In support of an attack on Iraq, US President [[George W. Bush]] stated in an address to the [[UN General Assembly]] on September 12, 2002 that the Iraqi "regime is a grave and gathering danger."<ref>[https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002]</ref> However, despite extensive searches during the several years of occupation, the suspected weapons of mass destruction or weapons program infrastructure alleged by the Bush administration were not found to be functional or even known to most Iraqi leaders.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313|title=CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq|website=[[NBC News]] |date=25 April 2005 |access-date=2009-05-24}}</ref> Coalition forces instead found dispersed and sometimes-buried and partially dismantled stockpiles of abandoned and functionally expired chemical weapons. Some of the caches had been dangerously stored and were leaking, and many were then disposed of hastily and in secret, leading to secondary exposure from improper handling.  Allegations of mismanagement and information suppression followed.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ford |first1=Dana |title=Report: United States kept secret its chemical weapons finds in Iraq |url=https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/15/us/iraq-chemical-weapons/index.html |access-date=18 September 2019 |agency=Turner Broadcasting System, Inc |publisher=CNN |date=October 15, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Chivers |first1=CJ |title=The Secret Casualties of Iraq's Abandoned Chemical Weapons |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=279797D532B892B5066743757602314B&gwt=pay&assetType=REGIWALL |access-date=18 September 2019 |work=New York Times |date=14 October 2014}}</ref>