| JuryFury.com
Now Every 15th of the Month ! Online School of Politics JuryFury
Chat
I-Traderschool
QuietPoly.com
Contributors
Research
Future
Discussions August 15th, 2004
|
|||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
US-Iraq War
Pandora’s Box Of Preemptive Strike by Saad Anis The inquiry commission in Britain headed by Lord Butler, assigned to look into discrepancies between intelligence provided ahead of the war and what has been discovered since Iraq's occupation, recently concluded its findings in a report. As expected, the verdict of the commission is that the Blair government relied on flawed evidence in making a case to invade Iraq to a bitterly divided public. In the United States, the 9/11 Commission is working on similar, albeit more expansive, grounds. From the statements released by the commission thus far, one can easily surmise that it is expected to be extremely critical of the US government's reliance on faulty evidence to push for the Iraqi invasion. Already, the commission has publicly rubbished Vice President Cheney's suggestions of pre-September 11 ties between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, leaving an embarrassed US administration to deal with its foot in its mouth. The reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of these commissions, is that the coalition claims of Iraq possessing stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) were incorrect. Furthermore, the assertion that the Saddam regime had nuclear capability can also be discarded, taking into account the fact that over a year of exhaustive search by weapons inspectors following the attack on Iraq has turned up nothing but dust. However, despite these ominous setbacks, the Bush and Blair governments still vehemently defend the decision to invade. Prime Minister Blair posits the argument that "Iraq, the region and the wider world is a safer place" without the menace that was Saddam Hussein. President Bush takes a more openly imperialistic line, taking pride in the fact that by attacking Iraq he "removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them." He enforces that argument every now and then by stressing upon the liberation of the Iraqi populace from tyranny, made possible only by virtue of the invasion. Upon a closer scrutiny of the above-mentioned statements, it is obvious that they, in their spirit, endorse the doctrine of preemptive strike; that is, it is fair to launch an attack on any perceived threat to national security, even if based solely upon the possibility of aggression or danger. In summary, the statements of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair provide for a set of premises which, if satisfied, justify preemptive strike. These premises are: a) perceived risk of aggression from threat, the existence of the possibility that the State in question might attack These premises provide free license for aggression. An analysis of the scenario prevalent in the world today brings home the disturbing realisation that in light of the set of postulates for preemptive strike provided by the proponents of the war on Iraq, a number of States would be vindicated in attacking those with which they have even tenuous relations. That the aggressor State might have ulterior motives for its belligerent actions, can always be obscured by justifiable pretexts under the grounds that serve as our model for preemption. Clearly, an adherence to such a set of axioms to defend anticipatory action would open up a Pandora's Box of global conflict. Let us examine only a few repercussions of such a position. With the principles for preemption set by the invasion of Iraq serving as guidelines, the Arab nations can make a case for invading Israel without difficulty. They can conveniently argue that there is a very real possibility of Israel attacking any of them (risk of aggression), and that Israel indeed has the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, they can base such preemption on the historical evidence of Israel's unprovoked destruction of the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and numerous other wanton incursions into the sovereign territories of Syria and Lebanon. Let us now move closer to home. Under the same accepted grounds, India can validate an attack on Pakistan and vice-versa, each arguing the possibility of aggression, the other's nuclear capability and historical precedence of hostile intent. Furthermore, Pakistan can even throw in the bit about the freedom of the Kashmiri people being its actual intent, a la President Bush, to claim a high moral ground. However, the proposed set of axioms can also backfire on the US if viewed from a different perspective. There are a number of States - Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria to name a few - that can acceptably launch an attack on the US itself in emulation of the postulates set by its own coalition. They can easily prove that the US is their sworn enemy (evoking the possibility of threat by branding them the "axis of evil" in 2002), already possesses weapons of mass destruction and can very possibly misuse these weapons against them. Although there is little realistic probability of a conventional declaration of war by these States, the authenticity of their case for preemptive strike binds us to accept even unconventional, 9/11-style attacks as legitimate, and thus justified. Clearly, the policy of preemptive attacks contingent upon the premises defined by the invasion of Iraq, is riddled with flaws. A global implementation of such a policy will inevitably lead to a situation which can euphemistically be described as apocalyptic. Thus, the obvious conclusion that can be made is that the premises themselves are flawed. As the predicates are faulty, the doctrine of preemptive strike, which bases itself on these premises, can no longer hold. The US and British governments will do well to put an end to the rhetoric regarding the need for invading Iraq, for while it may have given them an illusory cover for an illegal incursion, it provides rationale for the terrorism of the very elements that they are purportedly battling. About the Author(s): See under Our Contributors to find out about the Author(s) of this article. |
Yahoo! World News Headlines Our Winners Club Our Contributors Research Links Legal Advice ALL Awards & Internships Become an Activist Join an Organization Get Volunteerism Alert Write Letters to a local Politician Start your own Group Applied Politics Projects Suggest a Project Start your Yahoo Groups Get Internship Credit Funding for Projects Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Be In the Spotlight Let us Interview you : Authors of political books Activists Journalists Lawyers Law Enforcement Politicians Politican Scientists Be A Columnist Get Internship Credit Write twice a Month Get Heard Start a Yahoo Group Advertise with Us Books (Free) Political Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com |
|