International order, or else: The Henry Kissinger doctrine

Published 16 years ago -  - 16y ago 34

Henry Kissinger has clarified the record.  The New York Times had him down as opposing war with Iraq.  But during a Sunday appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Kissinger made no mistake about it.  “What is important in that region to get across [is] the people who challenge the United States and the international order by their behavior suffer grievous and unacceptable consequences,” said the former Secretary of State in support of an attack on Iraq.

There is no question that if President Bush believes Iraq is a danger to the American people, he should go to Congress and make the case for a resolution of war.  And if the only governing body that has constitutional authority for declaring war decides the President is correct, they have an obligation to grant it.   In this, the Bush doctrine applies.  Any government that supports terrorists who threaten our country must face military force.

But Kissinger’s statements stand in opposition to George Bush’s position outlined in the Presidential address to a joint session of Congress after the 9/11 attacks.  According to Bush, either you are “with us or against us” in fighting terrorists that attacked America.

By contrast, Dr. K’s version of an international order was made clear when he spoke about the Rodney King riots at a global conference on May 21, 1992 in Evian, France.

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful!   This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence.  It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil.   The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

Clearly, the Al-Qaeda terrorists fit right into Dr. K’s plan for global order.  As an unknown evil that will frighten us into giving up our rights, attacks on America do not meet his requirements for suffering “grievous and unacceptable consequences”.  Thus, while Kissinger supports going to war with Iraq, it is not clear that he agrees with our efforts in bringing justice to terrorists.

This is where consideration of regime change in Baghdad must be careful not to confuse objectives.  If Iraq’s government is behind networks that threaten America; we are justified in taking them out.  But if our goal is to make a statement for any nation that opposes international government, the United States is making a big mistake.  That is why the case must be made about Iraq’s support for terrorists, those who are actually a threat to America.

There is no question Saddam Hussein is sponsoring terrorism against Israelis.  He has offered $25,000 to families of Palestinians who kill themselves in attacks on Israel.  That is a considerable amount for people who are impoverished, as are many Palestinians.  The offer can’t be construed as anything other than sponsoring terrorism.

And it is surely the reason why Israel is growing impatient with Bush as he delays action against Iraq.  But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not threaten people in the United States.  Suicide attacks on the West Bank or Jerusalem don’t hurt people in New York, Pennsylvania, or Virginia.  Iraq’s support for the Palestinian militants may be evil, but it is not justification for war.

Still, Henry Kissinger has his reason for wanting war in Iraq.   His statements indicate that regime change in Baghdad could be useful in sending a message to other countries.  This might be considered evidence Iraq isn’t supporting the kind of terrorism that can serve as Dr. K’s foundation for world government.  If it were, logic dictates Kissinger would be against attacking Iraq since it contributes to his expressed vision for the establishment of “international order”.

But if Saddam Hussein is opposing that international order without actually being a threat to the American people, why would we consider going to war with Iraq?  Using the Kissinger doctrine, the reason is such countries must suffer grave consequences.

Henry Kissinger wants Iraq to be made an example for the rest of the world.  That’s it, plain and simple.  By destroying the Iraqi military and either killing or capturing Saddam Hussein, Kissinger’s Empire will send a message to the rest of the world.  Either you are with his “international order”, or you are against it.  And if you are against it, you will suffer.

Published originally at : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

34 recommended
comments icon 0 comments
0 notes
bookmark icon

Write a comment...

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *