PREEMPT THE PREEMPTIVE WARS

[jacdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The following article will be included in the June 15, 2002, Email issue
of the Mid-Hudson Activist Newsletter, published in New Paltz, N.Y., by
the 
Mid-Hudson National People?s Campaign/IAC
---------------------------------------------------------------

PREEMPT THE PREEMPTIVE WARS!

By Jack A. Smith

The United States government has adopted a doctrine of launching
preemptive wars, including the first-use of nuclear weapons when deemed
appropriate.

This policy, promoted by the right-wing Bush administration under the
guise of waging a war against terrorism and protecting national
security, is primarily intended to strengthen and expand Washington?s
economic, political and military empire.  It constitutes an historic
change from the ?containment and deterrence? policy inaugurated after
World War 2 to engage in a Cold War against the Soviet Union and the
socialist camp.

The main potential targets of preemptive military strikes are what the
White House calls the ?Axis of Evil?  countries, now expanded to include
Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria and Libya.  Not one of these
nations has been implicated in the Sept. 11 raids on the Pentagon and
the World Trade Center.  And not one, despite allegations from the White
House, has been proven to possess viable weapons of mass destruction.
Another 50 countries, which the Bush administration suggests may ?aid
terrorism? in one way or another, are secondary targets. 

President Bush will formally announce the new national security policy
and seek congressional support in a few months, according to press
reports.  Details of the program have been revealed piecemeal for months
-- so far eliciting no resistance from the ?opposition? Democratic
Party, which has allied itself with the warmaking Republican government.
Within the U.S., only the antiwar movement and the small political left
are openly fighting the new militarist policy.

The chief executive delineated the outlines of the preemptive war
strategy June 1 during a speech to the graduating class of the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point.  In subsequent days, his chief cohorts
-- Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld --
delivered speeches intended to generate international support for the
war policy.  The Bush administration?s first-strike nuclear policy was
made public March 9.

The essence of Bush?s West Point address was that ?the war on terror
will not be won on the defensive.  We must take the battle to the enemy,
disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. 
In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of
action.... Our security will require transforming the military you [the
cadets] will lead -- a military that must be ready to strike at a
moment?s notice in any dark corner of the world.  And our security will
require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready
for preemptive action....?

Elsewhere, in apparent reference to Iraq, North Korea and Cuba -- all
accused by the U.S. of concealing nuclear or biological weapons of mass
destruction -- Bush declared:  ?We cannot put our faith in the word of
tyrants who solemnly sign nonproliferation treaties and then
systematically break them.  If we wait for threats to fully materialize,
we will have waited too long.  Homeland defense and missile defense are
part of a stronger security.  They?re essential priorities for
America.... All nations that decide for aggression and terror will pay a
price.  We will not leave the safety of America and the peace of the
planet at the mercy of a few mad terrorists and tyrants.  We will lift
this dark threat from our country and from the world.?

Addressing a meeting of the defense ministers from 19 NATO nations in
Brussels June 6, Rumsfeld emphasized that ?absolute proof? of the
aggressive intentions of terrorists or  states with weapons of mass
destruction and ballistic missile systems ?cannot be a precondition for
[military] action.?  News reports indicated that ?a senior U.S. defense
official? specifically mentioned the six ?Axis? countries during the
NATO gathering.

The defense secretary provided a labyrinthine contortion of the word
?defensive? in justifying preemptive war:  ?If a terrorist can attack at
any time, at any place, using any technique, and it?s physically
impossible to defend in every place, at every time, against every
technique, then one needs to calibrate the definition of defensive.  The
only defense is to take the effort to find those global networks and to
deal with them, as the United States did in Afghanistan.  Now, is that
defensive, or is it offensive?  I personally think of it as defensive.?

Cheney entered the  discussion June 10 with an address to the
International Democrat Union meeting in Washington.  (The IDU is an
organization consisting of delegates from 80 rightist political parties
in 60 countries.  The then Vice President Bush, the elder, helped form
the group in 1983.)

A policy of containment, Cheney said, ?is not possible when unbalanced
dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on
missiles, or secretly provide them to their terrorist allies.  We have a
responsibility to protect ourselves against future attack, to prepare
our military for all future threats, to maintain the global coalition we
have built to defeat global terror, and to take preemptive action when
necessary.?

The administration?s first-strike nuclear policy became public in March
when the Pentagon?s new Nuclear Posture Review was leaked to the press. 
Under its terms, the U.S. may now use nuclear weapons under these
circumstances: (1) Against targets that can withstand non-nuclear
attacks, such as underground installations.   (2)  In retaliation not
only for a nuclear attack but also chemical and biological attacks of
unspecified dimension.   (3)  ?In the event of surprising military
developments,? whatever that may mean.  The document specifically
threatened nuclear retaliation under these conditions:  (1) If there is
a war between North and South Korea.   (2) If there is an armed conflict
between China and its province of Taiwan;  (3) If Iraq attacks Israel.
4.  Or for other reasons.

Clearly, the U.S. could not respond passively to the September
disaster.  Protective measures had to be taken to apprehend the guilty, 
prevent future attacks, and to provide decisive national leadership in a
crisis.  The resulting war on terrorism, however, far exceeds the actual
danger confronting the world?s dominant power by a network of hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of active members.   

Meanwhile, the White House refuses to contemplate measures that would
ameliorate the causes of small-group terrorism.  Logically, a crucial
component of any response to the suicide hijackings should have been an
honest analysis of Washington?s role in creating the conditions for the
attacks by its domination of the Middle East for the last half-century. 
A fundamental reorientation away from the practices of hegemony,
exploitation, and military actions would have done far more for
?homeland security? than the combined measures the Bush administration
is proposing today.   The U.S. cannot  follow such a course by the very
nature of a capitalist system requiring enormous supplies of reliable
cheap oil to fuel an economy dependent on the continual expansion of
global markets, of low-wage labor, increasing  capital investment and
ever-greater profits.

Instead, Washington espouses a militaristic preemptive war policy and
first-strike nuclear planning based the most deadly military arsenal in
history, elephantine spending on the weapons of war, and an elaborate
list of ?rogue? enemies to conquer. These elements are so
disproportionate to the events of Sept. 11 as to affirm that President
George Bush and the right-wing are really elaborating a strategic
scenario intended to eliminate any impediments to the expansion of the
U.S. economic empire and its conservative social/political
concomitants.  

The war on terrorism serves another purpose as well.  For over four
decades, the U.S. government exploited the Cold War as a unifying
principle to create popular allegiance to the state and the economic
system for which it stands, and to justify investing an inordinate
amount of tax dollars to the ?defense? establishment.  The unexpected
implosion of the USSR and the gradual ending of the Cold War left
Washington in search of an equivalent unifying agency.   On Sept. 11,
the transition was made from the old war against communism to a new war
against terrorism.  It is essentially the same war for similar purposes,
waged against yet another frightening construct of moral wickedness
preparing to devour our children.  Now it is the Evil One and the Axis
of Evil; then it was the Evil Empire.

The American people possess the ability and still retain the democratic
right to reverse these policies.   But so far, public opinion has been
manipulated by an overwhelming fear of terrorism constantly reinforced
by the Bush administration, appeals to flag-waving hyperpatriotism,
deliberate misinformation by the state disseminated without critical
examination by the corporate mass media, support for government war
policies by virtually all the major institutions of society, and the
absence of perceived alternatives to the two ruling political parties. 
On matters of war and peace today, both Republicans and Democrats march
in lock-step, and those who oppose the war have few allies in mainstream
political circles.

At the same time, there are other factors that must be considered in any
analysis of how far the Bush administration is able to pursue the war on
terrorism.  Although Washington has repeatedly vowed to act unilaterally
in the absence of international support, it does in fact require backing
from some key allies for its various adventures.  This may act as a
restraint on the wilder ambitions of the extreme right within the Bush
administration.

Further -- never underestimate the power of the people.  When they rise,
in totality or even on a particular issue, ruling classes tremble. This
power contributed significantly to the political crisis that forced a
halt to the worst of Washington?s many modern wars a little more than a
quarter-century ago.    For the first few years of the 1960s, that power
was confined to small movements of people in opposition.  But in time,
through dedicated organizing, activism and left leadership, it
overwhelmed the warmakers politically, and in concert with the
liberation forces of Indochina obliged the U.S. to bring the troops
home. True, America?s Southeast Asia intervention took place under quite
different circumstances, but that extraordinary people?s victory
nonetheless should provide encouragement in today?s struggle against the
right-wing war on terrorism.   The power of the people is entirely
capable of preempting the Bush administration?s plans for preemptive
wars.  It needs, however, to be galvanized.    (end)


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.