Was the Bush Doctrine preemptive or preventive?

Since there is no single statement of an official "Bush
Doctrine" it is hard to be precise in answering this question.  However, the overall
thrust of what has come to be known as the Bush Doctrine is much more preventive than it
is preemptive.

A preemptive war is one where war
is going to happen and the question is simply whether to
strike first or wait to be struck.  An example of preemptive war would if the US had
learned of the Pearl Harbor attack plan on December 1, 1941 and struck first to prevent
it.  Preemptive war is when you know that your enemy is going to attack and you beat
them to the punch.

A preventive war is one where the future
war might happen and you are trying to prevent that
eventuality from occurring.  The Iraq War that is synonymous with the Bush Doctrine was
preventive.  Even if Iraq had had WMD, there was no evidence that they were going to use
the WMD to attack the United States.  A war with Iraq was not inevitable.  Instead, it
was undertaken to prevent a possible conflict in the
future.

Since the Bush Doctrine allowed for war to prevent
possible dangers that might
lead to wars in the future, it was preventive.  If it had only said that the US would
strike first when war was inevitable it would have been
preemptive.