The new and overriding predicate of American policy--foreign, defense, security, domestic--is to ensure that 9/11 never happens again. If the terrorists managed to mount a second such attack anywhere in the U.S., the consequences would be destructive for the nation and calamitous for the administration. The dominant unspoken thought of the president of the U.S. must therefore be: "I will take whatever action is required to protect America from attack so that it will not be said of me 50 years from today that I was asleep at the switch at a seminal moment in our history."

It is out of these new realities that the doctrine of unilateral pre-emption--so condemned by many allies--emerged. I believe an accurate translation of the doctrine is this: "If the U.S. has persuasive evidence that a country is either contemplating an attack on the U.S. or its allies, or harboring terrorists who might strike out at the U.S. or its allies, then the U.S. will--with Security Council approval or without--pre-emptively act to remove the offending government from office." And why is this doctrine so offensive to so many? Some fear the precedent, others the erosion of multilateralism, and others still a negative impact upon the United Nations.

Although the reality of pre-emptive action is new, so was the terrorist strike on America. What is also new is the suggestion that Security Council approval is--and has been--a sacrosanct precondition to action against a hostile state. The historical record is to the contrary. In any event, I would never have agreed to subcontract Canada's international security decisions and our national interest to 15 members of the Security Council. This would be a surrender of national sovereignty to which I'd never consent...