the propeace community
evolving from antiwar to propeacebuilding a culture of peace
welcomeactive bloggerslink exchangeRecent sites with which propeace.net has exchanged links:
Would you like to exchange links with propeace.net? Contact us! propeace global
Webmasters: start a propeace community site in your country! Here's how. |
The War On TerrorBy most measures, the global war on terror has been a failure. Osama bin Laden remains at large, thumbing his nose at Bush in video-taped comments. No "illegal combatant" incarcerated at Guantanamo has been brought to trial. The only terrorist attack prevented -- for real, not in dark hints from the CIA -- has been when a flight attendant subdued shoe bomber Richard Reid. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were an act of terrorism perpetrated by a group of fanatical individuals, not a nation state. Yet the Bush administration chose to respond as though the US had been attacked by all of the Islamic nations of the Middle East, declaring this and that nation a part of an "axis of evil", casting the conflict in simplistic black and white terms, declaring "You're either with us or with the terrorists". Consider then that Bush's Global War on Terror has already gone on longer than WWII but shows no sign of winding down. It is used by Washington to justify security laws (with the consequent dimuniton of civil rights) and Pentagon spending programs ($450 billion for 2006 and counting). The brutal bombings in Spain and Britain triggered a localized police response, not a global anti-terrorist crusade. Perhaps not coincidentally, arrests were made in both cases. Despite claims to the contrary, this administration cannot demonstrate that the threat of al-Qaida has been reduced to any degree. Nor can the Bush administration make any substantive claim that, as a result of its 'war on terror' policies, Americans are any safer than before the start of the war in Iraq. Many believe that the policies and actions of the US government have, in fact, not made Americans safer but have only made the prospects of another attack in the U.S more likely and confirmed in the minds of the radical Islamic fundamentalists its beliefs and fears about American intentions. By all appearances, the way it was framed by Washington, the War On Terror clearly wasn't meant to be won -- merely fought. Terrorism was never defined, the enemy was never identified (beyond whatever state or entity the American government deemed "evil") and no parameters for victory were ever set. From the start, the War On Terror has been an Orwellian war without end -- the kind governments wage on their own citizens to tighten the screws, eliminate opposition or keep people from asking uncomfortable questions ("You're either with us or with the terrorists"). Is this, then, what the internationalists have in mind when they speak about creating a "New World Order"? Do they really believe that by engaging in an endless war they can "advance the cause of peace"? The administration brooks no debate or discussion concerning its policies or strategy vis a vis the War On Terror. It simply casts its questionable policies in such lofty and noble-sounding rhetoric as "the call of history" to bring "an end to tyranny in the world" and marches on, pursuing its geo-political objectives. By definition, then, the only way the Islamic fundamentalists can oppose American power and policies is terrorism (there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do so). They have no other means to resist the invasion and imposition of this New World Order on their country. But Iraqi insurgents can't even get to U.S. government officials or civilians and have been forced to seek ever-softer targets. They have been blowing up their own population, trying to thwart the U.S.-led invasion by plunging their own country into chaos. This new, horrendous twist in terrorist tactics -- which the Bush administration has characteristically missed -- can be effective only if the United States remains a democracy, and retains an open society and free press. In their Quixotic attempt to "advance freedom and democracy", Americans need to ask themselves whether their own democracy is best served by a government seemingly intent on establishing some kind of New World Order; or whether they will remain silent and unquestioning, hoping and believing that somehow their leaders "know better than I". Let them consider whether this New World Order and the imposition of Western values and ideals on other nations of the world is compatible with democracy at home. Jack O Roses
|
propeace quoteI want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details. daily omrecent blog postsactive discussions
similar postswho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 15 guests online.
support this communityHelp keep propeace.net online and spread the word at the same time. Make a donation of US$5 or more and receive a propeace.net button. The button is a 2" X 3" (5.1cm X 7.6cm) rectangle that looks like this:
subscribe |
digg it
technorati search
RSS 2.0
What We Focus On Expands
I've seen the progressive media pushing our panic buttons over the "impending war in Iran," and I don't want to see the propeace community accept this unfortunate bit of framing and the despair engendered by the implied inevitability of such a conflict. Please join me in grasping at four straws. If we focus on them, they will expand.
First, I think even the present administration would think twice about invading Iran if it had doubts about the willingness or ability of Israel as a strong ally, and Israel is preoccupied with the new regime in Palestine right now. Second, there is good evidence that the EU nations would not make the same mistake twice; several have committed to and already commenced significant troop withdrawals, and Iran's converting to the euro seems a friendly enough gesture. Third, it seems clear that Iran would have China as a strong ally to reinforce its home-turf advantage. Finally, with an $8+ trillion national debt, recovery from a huge natural disaster, a depleted and demoralized military, and a newly-awakened electorate, we are not the same country we were in the wake of 9/11.
Editor, propeace.net
Your Comments... The War On Terror
Although it was not my intention to dissect the motives of this administration, I understand clearly that the failure of their 'war on terror' policies is not a simple matter of inablility or ineptitude. I wish that it were just that. That the resources of the Middle East is THE issue and motivation of these corporate criminals should be crystal clear to anyone capable of rational, analytical thought. That this administration wishes to expand its imperialist war is made plain in the words and deeds of the members of Bush's band of war-mongers. There is apparently no limit to the American blood and treasure they are willing to expend in pursuit of their policies. Also clear is the complete inability on the part of all of our elected 'leaders' to think and act creatively; to show courage and offer an alternative to the present course of this administration .
Naturally the question arises - What shall we do "to create a peaceful world"? After exposing the motives and the "misdirection of those in power"... "what is our next step"? I personally attempt to deal with these questions in two ways - the practical and the philosophical. For the former, I will soon write and post an essay here on ProPeace that I will call "What to do? What to do." A hint - Jason is absolutely on the right track.
As for the latter, the 'philosophical', I will refer you to essays posted on my blog www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com. There I am able to make a deeper analysis of conditions and offer alternative points of view as we consider solutions to this conflict. There you will be better able to consider in a broader context my own thoughts and ideas and there you are encouraged to offer your own thoughts and perspectives.
Jack O Roses
www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com
articulating the vision
I had to highlight these because they shed light on the vision that we must become even better at articulating. It is easy to read the newspaper and be outraged about how contrary "their" way of handling things seems to "us". Much harder is to pragmatically describe alternatives.
I approached my congressman (a Democrat) in person at his "Bring Home the Troops Town Hall Meeting" about the moot issue of troop levels in Iraq, saying that it really didn't matter if we had zero or 50,000 or half a million there, if we wanted real results we should replace 100,000 troops with 100,000 peacemakers. His eyes glazed over and he seemed not to even comprehend the point I was making. But to his credit, at that very meeting he announced that he was signing on the Department of Peace legislation, HR-3760, which would create a cabinet-level department for putting into practice the vision of resolving domestic and international conflict non-violently.
The American people must find and elect leaders that understand what this means and why it is important. In that respect, it is all in our hands. To those of you who are outraged and whining, get over it and let's get busy finding and empowering better leaders and building non-violence into our institutions and culture!
And while we watch the pitiful thrashing of an archaic and intensely destructive way of governance, and while we find and empower leaders who know better, we will continually address our own personal expressions of violence, including the over-use of the Earth's resources.
Many thanks, Steve.
--Jason.
perspective
It is imperative at this point in time to look beyond the anti-Islamic and anti-terrorist rhetoric and focus on the economic reasons for waging war in the Middle East, because our nation is at great risk of repeating the same mistake we made in 2002, when Congress authorized the Administration to use "any means necessary" to address the perceived threats of Saddam, with accompanying Executive power "as if" war had been declared. This time of course, the target is Iran, but the reason is exactly the same. In November of 2000, Saddam painted a target on his back by switching his country's oil currency from dollars to Euro's. On Mar. 20, 2006, Iran will be doing exactly that same thing.
We cannot argue against the impending invasion of Iran on the basis of their perceived nuclear threat because it is a straw dog, just as it was in the case of Iraq.
Earlier today I was reading about the ongoing impasse between the Israeli government and the newly instated Palestinian Authority with its majority Hamas Party. Mahmoud Abbas, former Prime Minister and head of the somewhat discredited Fatah party, made the observation that "there is no military solution to this conflict."
The same is true in Iraq. I would offer a different impression from Jack's, that the struggle between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq has been going on for far longer than the Occupation, and can only be addressed, as Mr. Abbas intimated, by non-military means. If there were just a few thousand trained peacemakers in Iraq instead of a hundred thousand occupying troops, they might make some headway in mitigating the insurgency.
It's important to look at the conflict from this different perspective, not to compare current conditions to what would happen in the absence of troops, but to consider what would happen in the presence of peacemakers. Even more importantly, the impending invasion of Iran should be viewed in the context of Iraq. The invasion was based on false pretenses and as a result we are mired in an unnecessary Occupation rather than released by the completion of a necessary task.
If we look beyond the familiar "grave threat" rhetoric to the underlying reason for invading Iran, then we can recognize the enemy within: our addiction to oil. What have I done today to address my addiction to oil? If the answer is "nothing", what business do I have criticizing my government for their way of addressing it?
Steve
=========
Our lives begin to end the moment that we become silent about things that matter. (Martin Luther King Jr.)
Re: Jack,I agree with your
I agree with your concerns about the ineffectiveness of our actions in our "War on Terror". However, I think there is more to it than that. I think this Administration has used the tragic events of 9/11 to exert our control over Mid-Eastern oil. This is why they were not content with merely pursuing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and went after Iraq.
Absolutely. Iraq is the geographic dead center for the remaining 2/3 of the world's oil reserves, and as Bush said in that rare moment of honesty, "we are addicted to oil." Addiction is a strong word, one that even Buhs supporters have a hard time with. But it's accurate. With only 5% of the worlds population, we consume 25% of the oil, more per capita than any nation on earth. For every barrel of oil we produce in the US, we import two barrels, and lots of comes from places where they don;t particularly like Americans.
The truly scary part about the addiction is that global supply is dangerously close to global demand, and demand is growing. Major supply interruptions could at occur at any time - consider the events Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran. We saw what happened to prices in the aftermath of Katrina. Imagine windless Katrinas all over the world that drives oil to $200 per barrel or more.
For an enlightening roundtable discussion of the dire implications of this addiction, check out the MP3 of James Howard Kunstler and Richard Heinberg at:
http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/roundtable/021806.html
Artie
Jack,I agree with your
Jack,
I agree with your concerns about the ineffectiveness of our actions in our "War on Terror". However, I think there is more to it than that. I think this Administration has used the tragic events of 9/11 to exert our control over Mid-Eastern oil. This is why they were not content with merely pursuing Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and went after Iraq.
A document commissioned by James Baker entitled Strategic Energy Policy Challenges was turned over to Vice President Cheney in April of 2001, 5 months before 9/11. It targets Saddam as a threat to American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means to fix the US energy crisis.
One of the most telling passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets.
'This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a pan-Arab leader ... and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime. The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments.
'The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.'
Jim
http://home.comcast.net/~oil_free_and_happy/
Favorite Quote: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." Einstein
peace is our topic
Hi Jack, thank you for you very well written analysis. Tell us what you would do to create a peaceful world. Certainly a first step would be to expose the misdirection of those in power as you have done. So let's say that everything you have said is true. What is our next step?
Peace.Jason.
The War On Terror
Thanks for the input, Brian. Please try to stay on topic...
Jack O Roses
www.usaourcountry.blogspot.com
Elite*Justice
If the American system was truly built and functioned upon the ideals and beliefs of liberty and justice for all, for the equal rights and protection of all, it would require any citizen involved in an accidental shooting or vehicular incident, etc. to appear before a district judge, and at the very least that person would be required to attend and pass a gun safety education class, or in the case of a vehicular accident it would be driving safety, just as one must undergo anger management if arrested for assault, or Alcohol treatment if convicted of a DUI.
That some are exempt or can buy their way out of these situations is proof of the propaganda farce and elite system of justice and privilege which is the true mark of an empire building and global domination driven system of government and commerce, which is only interested in creating a “demo-cracy†in its own image.
BL*M
Love*Rulz - @
www.Timeless-ink-Press.com