Here is the article, it is written by one person only but it is published in the Army War College Quarterly (The United States Army's Senior Professional Journal)
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03winter/contents.htmlooks prety well documented too.
I think your pooh-poohing of this as an opinion article form an instructor doesnt hold water - this is a scholarly writing, not some editorial. here is the gist
"This article identifies and examines the Bush Doctrine’s major tenets, and then assesses the doctrine’s strengths and weaknesses within the context of the Administration’s prospective attack on Iraq. "
and here is the conclusion
"However convincing the case for an attack on Iraq, preemption as a declaratory doctrine lacking criteria but applicable to a generic category of states invites real trouble after Iraq, and for that reason could turn out to be a poor, even impossible basis for America’s relations with the rest of the world.
Coda
In the earliest years of the Cold War, before the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb, there were calls in the United States for preventive war against another evil dictator. The calls continued even after the Soviets detonated their first bomb in 1949. Indeed, in the following year, the Commandant of the Air Force’s new Air War College publicly asked to be given the order to conduct a nuclear strike against fledgling Soviet atomic capabilities. “And when I went to Christ,” said the Commandant, “I think I could explain to Him why I wanted to do it now before it’s too late. I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization. With it [the A-bomb] used in time, we can immobilize a foe [and] reduce his crime before it happened.”69
President Truman fired the Commandant, preferring instead a long, hard, and, in the end, stunningly successful policy of containment and deterrence. "
strk
