We can kick anyone’s ass, and we have the papers to prove it.
Or so says our gloriously militant presidential administration. The document to which I’m referring is our The National Security Strategy, which says, among other things, that the US has the right to attack any country that might be a threat, or might someday be a threat, or that looks at us funny.
All in the name of protecting ourselves, of course. Oh, and our allies. Which at this point would be Great Britain and Israel, so France had better get in line right quick.
In an amazing show of restraint, September 11 is only mentioned seven times in the 32-page document. (Well, ok, 35 pages, but that’s counting two cover pages and another blank page at the end.) But Sept 11 is, of course, the justification for this sweeping display of thuggery.
It’s frightening when the Boy King declares: "The conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing." (p.5) That could, of course, be never. You don’t win a War on Terror, any more than you win a War on Crime. While locking up the entire population is a way to make sure that you catch the criminals, it destroys the society that you’re trying to protect. In the same way, threatening to attack the entire world isn’t the right way to bring about world peace. For one thing, an ongoing "War on Terror" would bankrupt the country. We won the Cold War by making the Soviet Union spend more than they could afford; making ourselves spend more than we can afford isn’t going to defeat terrorism.
"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack." (p. 15)
There you go: If we think you’re threatening our way of life, we get to attack you. Just like Japan was protecting itself from imminent danger in 1941. Odd that most history books don’t tout the long-term security that attacking Pearl Harbor provided for Japan.
Ah, but we have learned. On page 29, the document lays out the responsibilities of our military forces. Number three in the list of four is that our military must, in order to effectively defend our country, "dissuade future military competition." Bullies hate competition. If you’re getting too big, we have the right to pound you back down to the ground. All in the name of eliminating terrorism, of course. It says right there on the first page that "...we do not use our strength to press for unilateral advantage." So we’re not trying to rule the world, honest.
But we shouldn’t we need proof before attacking? We need to establish that a nation is a threat to us, gather irrefutable evidence, and bring it before the world to make our case, right? Not according to Donald Rumsfeld: "I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back in the 20th century and still thinking in pre-9/11 terms." Ok, how about something more substantial than rumors and massively qualified statements about what weapons a nation might be developing and might use, or might sell to terrorists. Yes, we’ve entered the shining 21st century, a new era of “Might makes right” moral certainty.
I particularly like this quote: "The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology...History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act." (p. 2 of the introduction).
I certainly hope so. Especially in light of those troublesome news articles that are popping up, with headlines like "9/11 Probers Say Agencies Failed to Heed Attack Signs". I think that taking a vacation at the Lazy Photo Op Ranch qualifies as a failure to act. But, hey, that was just for the entire month of August; maybe Georgie was really, really active during the next ten days. After all, he’s only spent 42% of his term on vacation, which means that he’s on the job most of the time. I’d hate to be too harsh on the guy.
To finish this little rant, I’d like to mention the title of chapter seven: "Expand the Circle of Development by Opening Societies and Building the Infrastructure of Democracy". Any chance that we can start with Florida?