Theorists distinguish between preventive war and pre-emptive war. Although the administration and the press are now referring to an Iraq attack as "pre-emptive," they're technically wrong. A preventive war aims to nip an eventual threat in the bud; it calculates that now is the moment to strike since down the road your enemy will be stronger. A pre-emptive war involves attacking a country because that country is on the verge of attacking you; it's like an act of self-defense. The rationale that the Bush administration offers for invading Iraq now—that no code of morality requires you to sit around and wait for your enemy to strike you first—is legitimate for justifying a pre-emptive attack. But it doesn't legitimate a preventive attack, as we're planning against Iraq, because there's no reason to believe that Iraq is planning to attack the United States at all.