Strike First, Explain Yourself Later

For those reasons, Washington policy makers have good arguments for what they call a "forward-leaning" strategy, one that doesn't wait for something awful to happen before applying armed force. Iraq is at the heart of the debate. For the Bush Administration, the only safe way to deal with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is for them to be destroyed--whether or not they have yet been used against the interests of the U.S. or its friends.

Fine; but if pre-emption is to be adopted as a doctrine, it has to encompass more than one rogue state. Will its use be limited to those nations--like Iraq--that possess weapons of mass destruction? Or can it be used whenever an Administration feels like it? And what happens if other nations follow the lead of the U.S. and incorporate pre-emption into their strategic thinking? (Imagine nuclear-armed India deciding to attack terrorist camps in nuclear-armed Pakistan.) That way lies international anarchy.

Inside the Administration, officials are trying to turn the new doctrine into a formal paper. That's wise. International law, to be sure, is often honored mainly in the breach. But sometimes it makes sense to set out plainly--and not just in a speech at West Point--the circumstances in which one nation feels entitled to take up arms against another. Daniel Webster understood that more than 160 years ago. George W. Bush could do worse than to emulate him today.

--With reporting by Massimo Calabresi and Mark Thompson/Washington