Can preemptive military strikes ever pass the just war test?
Here is a story:
Nation X is being threatened with annihilation by Entities Y. Entities Y have already inflicted damage on Nation X, which they term as a imperialistic crusader. Nation X tries to resolve it difficulties with Entities Y via diplomacy appealing to the international community including the United Nations. The threat posed by Entities Y is not diminshed by the international community/United Nations. Nation X believes that a preemptive strike is the best option for maximizing good/minimizing evil, especially given that the rhetoric of Entities Y hints at genocide and "liquidation" of the peoples of Nation X.
For the sake of argument, assume the following part of the story is true:
Nation X's preemptive military strike ("anticipatory counteroffensive") does succeed and prevents massive loss of life, that is, had not Nation X preemptively struck when it did, Entities Y would have with high probability inflicted massive loss of life, and not only for members of Nation X. Nation X's tactics are fully within international rules of warfare otherwise, for example, they treat any prisoners humanely (with perhaps a few exceptions), use proportional force, do not target civilians, etc.
Is Nation X justified in using preemptive military force?
Here is another version of the story with added details (perhaps not the one you expected):
In 1967, Israel was threatened with annihilation by various countries. Syria (President Nuredin al-Atassi: "We want a policy of scorched earth for Palestine"), including Arafat's Fatah, was causing problems along the Israeli-Syrian border. Concerning one incident, the Soviet Union vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution of censure of Syria. Egypt (Nasser: "We shall enter it [Palestine] with its soil covered in blood") ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Force from the Gaza strip under the nose of secretary-general U Thant. Egypt also closed the Strait of Tiran and amassed it troops in Sinai. It was common rhetoric of this period to hear Israel called imperialistic and a crusader (!) and to hear for a call of jihad against Israel. The Israelis appealed to the international community. The United States did not honor a pledge by Eisenhower made in 1957. Undersecretary of State Rostow wanted the United Nations to be involved. France's De Gaulle also did not defend the Israelis and ordered military assistance stopped. Three non-aligned members of the Security Council refused to even having Egypt's blockade discussed. Israel's military leaders were already discussing the possiblity of a preemptive strike. In fact, Rabin had stated in 1964 that Israel would need to win a war in four days. This would entail, it seems, a preemptive military philosophy. It was admitted that world opinion dictated that the foreign enemies would have to be in a strong position to attack. In regard to 1967, all Israeli cabinet members eventually agreed with the decision for a preemptive strike.
Israel did preemptively strike and by most accounts it was decisive. The Egyptian airforce was devastated. Who knows what would have happened if the Israelis had not used preemption, but for Israel (for what that nation is worth) it would not have been good.
The logic of preemption is not grandly illogical. Perhaps in times past a nation was expected to absorb a first hit and only then would violence be justified as a defensive reponse. However, when that first hit itself might be unacceptable, there might not be another cheek to turn.
I would argue that Israel's experience has greatly influnced U.S. policy in the Middle East. Now, how would the Bush administration go about arguing that the preemptive war in Iraq is/was justified?