WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, at a ceremony last week renaming the National Foreign Affairs Training Center in his honor, had a novel way of describing how Sept. 11 has changed U.S. policy in dealing with outside threats.

In calling on other countries to root out terrorism within their own borders, Mr. Shultz said, "We also reserve, within the framework of our right to self-defense, the right to preempt terrorist threats within a state's borders." The new concept, he said, is "not just hot pursuit," but also "hot preemption."The difference, said Ronald Reagan's chief diplomat for six years, is that "this is war, not a matter of law enforcement. States that support terror are as guilty as the terrorists."

Mr. Shultz went on: "They are in the cross hairs, and the principle of state accountability is being established. Our goal is not primarily to punish and retaliate, but to prevent acts of terror through intelligence that enables us to preempt and ultimately to eliminate the source."

There was a touch of I-told-you-so in Mr. Shultz's remarks as he recalled that in 1984, after the attacks on the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, he had said, "We cannot allow ourselves to become the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond."

At the time, he said, "I was disowned and dismissed by official Washington and on leading editorial pages," but "was relieved after I had a chance to go over my thinking carefully with President Reagan; he said he agreed with me."

On that occasion, however, there was neither hot pursuit nor hot preemption. Instead, against Mr. Shultz's objections, Mr. Reagan agreed to the withdrawal of U.S. forces shortly afterward, according to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon.

The concept of hot preemption that Mr. Shultz now proposes is clearly in keeping with President Bush's announced intention of going after those states that harbor terrorists as well as seeking out the terrorists themselves.

The speculation continues here that a military strike against Iraq is only a question of when. This is so despite reported resistance from the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

But how does a policy of hot preemption square with the constitutional power of Congress to declare war? The resolution authorizing military response against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, some of its authors insist, does not apply to broader targets.

In the Cuban missile crisis 40 years ago, the generals proposed just such a hot preemption to take out the Soviet missiles nearing readiness on the island. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy responded by scribbling a note: "I now know how Tojo felt when he was planning Pearl Harbor," questioning whether the United States wanted to be seen in the same light.

Then, this country also was looking down the barrel of a nuclear attack, but an alternative response was finally chosen. A blockade of Soviet missile shipments into Cuba put the confrontation less lethally at sea and finally yielded a nonlethal resolution.

There is, to be sure, a distinct difference between dealing with an adversary that is interested in survival and one that is driven by religious and cultural fanaticism. But the concept of hot preemption by a democracy whose laws require at least advance consultation with the legislative branch on the use of force merits a thorough airing before Congress now.

Jules Witcover's column from The Sun's Washington bureau appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.