"Preventive" war vs. "Preemptive"

Andrew Krepenevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment has provided a useful description of the distinction between "preemptive" war (the term used by the Bush Administration) and "preventive" war in  Transforming the Legions: The Army and the Future of Land Warfare 01/14/04.

There has been no small confusion over the meaning of "preemptive" and "preventive" attack in the recent debate over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq. The Bush Administration's rhetoric has confused "preemption" with "prevention." Traditionally, states have undertaken a preemptive attack against an adversary when it appeared that an attack by that adversary was imminent - a matter of only days, or perhaps even hours. Thus, Israel's attack on Egyptian and Syrian forces that were massing for attack in June 1967 is accurately described as a preemptive attack. Preventive attacks, and preventive wars, have traditionally been undertaken by states that, while not anticipating an attack in the immediate future, believe that a rising enemy will pose an unacceptable threat if it is not dealt with in the near term. The Third Punic War is thus a preventive war. Following the devastation of the first two Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage, Rome believed it could not risk seeing Carthage rise again. Consequently, Rome went to war to destroy Carthage. Similarly, Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981 was a preventive attack. (p. 17, footnote; p. 30 of the *.pdf file)