The right to self defense: The last crusades
Image courtesy of Morning Calm Weekly Newspaper Installation Management Command, U.S. Army under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
The question of whether or not a truly Christian nation should go to war has in the past been measured in its justification and morality by its citizens and their leaders in the Christian church. There was never any question that the oligarchy and its supporters went to war for their own interests independent of the people. The elites of nations who needed to go to war for one reason or another always had to deceive its citizenry on the moral imperative and justification for going to war. So called western civilized nations of free people such as the United States, were theoretically to go to war based on the principles within the “just war theory” by historical contemporaries such as St. Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, among others. Regrettably, most of the wars America has fought since the revolutionary war were outside the parameters of “just war theory”. Indeed, historically, many wars fought by western nations did not fall within the parameters of just war principles, which basically is, that in free societies, nations went to war under a strict adherence to the rule of law, or in the action of self-defense against hostile invasions, or under the conditions where it was obvious that a nation was massing its military forces on the borders of another nation for an imminent attack. Naturally, there are always opponents to the restrictive concepts of just war principles by men and women of war. The fundamental question today is, does the United States have the moral authority and just cause to initiate an aggressive war on Iraq and beyond, and can the Bush regime claim that its war with Iraq is an act of self-defense.
The assertion by the wizards of Bush, that the policy of preemption is a form of self-defense is hysterical and extremely dubious at best. Common sense dictates that the impoverished Iraqis do not pose a direct threat to the security of the United States. While the despot in Baghdad is without a doubt megalomaniacal, that Saddam in the end is a survivor is without question, and it would absolutely be suicidal for him to initiate hostile intent towards the United States by arming terrorists with WMD’s. His war with Iran was initiated only under the tacit support of the United States. His use of WMD’s against Iran and the Kurds, again, was only done with the tacit approval of the United States. His invasion of Kuwait was also done with the understanding that Washington had no interest in Iraqi – Kuwaiti disputes. These actions clearly reveal a calculating mind and a determination in the past to go to war only with the explicit approval or acquiesce by his former friends. Obviously Saddam is a very bad man, but his history reveals that he is not a stupid man.
The truth of the matter is that Iraq has never attacked the United States, and that it has never threatened to do so have fallen on deaf ears with many Americans. Inconclusive evidence presented by the Secretary of State Colin Powell to the United Nations as a justification for war has proved to be plagiaristic and duplicitous. An impoverished nation weakened by twelve years of low intensity warfare under U.S. led sanctions is now about to be invaded by the mightiest military humanity has ever produced, and we are to believe that it is an act of self-defense by the United States therefore morally justified? The Bush clique can fallaciously make that claim, and it only serves to distract from the obvious contradictory and erroneous arguments for this aggression. If anyone has a legitimate moral justification to claim self-defense it is the Iraqis not the United States, the United States is over there invading their country; Iraq is not over here attacking or invading America. The grand masters of subterfuge have not been able to legitimately link Iraq with Al Qaida and have not been able to present a clear case using truthful evidence that Iraq has been proliferating WMD’s. So, why this illegitimate invasion which also happens to be constitutionally illegal, which also fails the just war principle of the “rule of law”, making the initiators of this illegal war, criminals worthy of impeachment and incarceration?
The policy of unilateralism and preemption is a geo-strategic strategy defined in the Bush administrations release of its “National Security Strategy of the United States of America”, has its roots in then undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz’s 1992 paper “Defense Planning Guidance”. This strategy was further augmented for Middle East use by the 1996 collaborative paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” by neocons Richard Perle and undersecretary of defense Douglas Feith among others. All these men are now in the higher echelons of the Bush government. Wolfowitz’s paper basically calls for American military power to be used to establish American hegemony across the globe suppressing potential rivals who have the resources to become a global power. The military encirclement of Russia is part of that strategy. It also calls for an American led new order based on military power and American virtues which happens to be at the moment globalization for its various conglomerates. Together with Perle’s collaboration, which calls for a convergence of Israeli and American interests in the region, and to establish a greater Israel, the unilateral policy of imperial preponderance by the Bush administration is the direct result of these works. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the infallible President Bush has allowed the United States to become Israel’s proxy in establishing security for Israel alone, which has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate American interests. This perverse policy is anathema to a constitutional republic, where the interests of a favored country becomes its own, which in the end will result in the loss of freedom for Americans and consequently the loss of a free republic to the dictates of a criminal oligarchy.
This foreign policy is not, as William Kristol defined Wolfowitz’s 1992 paper as “ahead of his time”, rather, it is extremely short sighted and dangerous which impugns political realities of other nations for an all encompassing American pseudo-strategic-political reality. Of course, chickenhawks such as Kristol are permanently engrossed in their own megalomania where all they see is wars of conquest for American hegemony, for our security of course, not to mention for the benefit of the world. This policy that Bush has chosen to implement guarantees that nations that are opposed to the imperial designs of the evangelical Judeo-Christian master race, are forced to pursue a nuclear program and to produce weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible. It really is the smart and prudent thing for these small nations to do because they very well know that neocons are cowards at heart and will not attack a nuclear armed nation. Nuclear proliferation worldwide will be the inevitable result of unilateralism. This is exactly what is happening; countries like Iran, Libya, Egypt and North Korea have nuclear programs. In North Korea’s and Pakistan’s case, they are proliferating and helping other countries achieve nuclear capability. This geo-strategic reality clarifies the absolute absurdity in invading Iraq. There is no justification for an escalation of hostilities on the grounds that we must disarm Iraq of their last remaining bows and arrows.
If anyone is predisposed to use WMD’s in the invasion, it is not Iraq, but the United States that would do so. The neanderthalian warlord Secretary of Defense Donald “boom-boom” Rumsfeld, revealed earlier this month that American forces are planning to use “non-lethal” biochemical weapons such as anti-riot gases and crowd control agents when they invade Iraq such as used by Russian security forces in Moscow which resulted in the “not so lethal” massive deaths. Supposedly non-lethal, or not, it would be a matter of inconvenience to point out to the modern day crusaders that the use of these weapons against people in wartime is forbidden and a war crime. But, we all know that the Bush government are righteous freedom fighters who are above the law consequently not restricted by these informalities, its all ok as long as the other guy don’t use them because that would just plain be evil. The United States is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the 1928 Geneva Protocol, which ban the use of chemical agents against people in wartime. How about all the talk about “bunker busters” or affectionately called by the war makers “little nukes”? Are those WMD’s or are they classified as “non lethal” for American use only? Ah… this is hypocrisy at its finest.
This policy that George Bush has deliberately chosen for this country is not part of some righteous manifest destiny that our vehement leader tries to project. No matter how much his eminence tries to bring a fervent religious attitude into public discourse and policy, not seen since the zealotry of the crusades, truth and common sense will prevail exposing the utter stupidity in boy George’s immature attitudes towards Americans and the world. Unfortunately many will probably die before Americans wake up and see that this country has religious fanatics of its own to deal with. As far as Christians are concerned, the wake up call should have been the moment Bush declared his war on evil and that America was destined to rid the world of evil doers who hate freedom. It was the will of “the Almighty” to liberate the oppressed people of Iraq, said the boy wonder recently. This Hegelian dialect with Gnostic overtones has nothing to do with Christianity and is extremely unscriptural. What we are hearing from the gates of power within this country is stunningly familiar rhetoric in which Germans who were alive in the 1930’s can relate to quite well.
This whole thing is becoming quite pathetic, American diplomat’s scouring around the world in a bid to bribe strategic countries to support what the world sees as nothing less than naked aggression against a country that does not have the capacity to defend itself. And if billions of dollars in bribes aren’t enough then outright threats will do just fine.
These little Caesars that occupy the corridors of power today in Washington are men and women of violence, this is what they are sowing for themselves and for this nation, and that is what they will reap, inescapably, that will be their end. Sadly, they could very well take down an entire nation with them.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”