Preemptive Strikes are Still Invasion

Changing the Language Doesn't Change the Meaning

By Richard Worth

Published: March 14, 2026   •    2 min read

After September 11, 2001, the U.S. government, who had no idea who to counterattack, claimed Iraq—which had nothing to do with 9/11—had weapons of mass destruction and might attack us. So instead of waiting for that to happen, they called it a “preemptive strike” and invaded the country.

George H. W. Bush had invaded Iraq during his presidency but had pulled out knowing he would destabilize the region. Many people believe that is why he was not re-elected for a second term. So his son, George W. Bush, made sure he would finish his father's war—even if Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never had weapons of mass destruction at all. Of course at that point it was really about controlling their oil for a generation and paying US companies to rebuild the country. Ultimately, the region was destabilized, as Bush Sr. knew it would, and, arguably still is today. Sadly, the preemptive strike on Iraq was about making a handful of super rich people even richer.

I wish it could be said that, after Iraq, America learned its lesson and dismissed the idea of preemptive strikes. But Trump just used it as an excuse to invade Iran. Sadly, that country is going through hell just as its neighbor Iraq did the last time the term was used. One can imagine the goals are pretty much the same as the last time we invaded the region.

The truth is, just because you call it “preemptive” doesn’t make it defensive. If you’re the one hitting first, it’s still an invasion. That’s true whether you’re dropping bombs or sending troops across the border. The Iraq War proved this the hard way but we still haven't learned that lesson.

America needs to learn that and stop invading countries. That isn't what America is supposed to be about.

Call it what it is: starting war.