Homeland Defense:
The Pentagon Declares War on America
by Frank Morales

Global Outlook, Issue 3, Winter 2003
www.globalresearch.ca December 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR312A.html

In 2003, Frank Morales was granted A Project Censored Award of Sonoma University, Cal.

The article published below was ranked Second in the Top 25 Most Censored Stories, which were granted the Project Censored Award.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "PATRIOT Act" is a repressive "coordination" of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military. It broadens, centralizes and combines the surveillance, arrest and harassment capabilities of the police and intelligence apparatus. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.

The "domestic war on terrorism" hinges upon the Pentagon's doctrine of homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being enacted in the name of internal security. So called "homeland security", originally set within the Pentagon's "operations other than war", is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on America. Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating military "doctrine" seeks to justify new roles and missions for the Pentagon within America. Vast "legal" authority and funds to spy on the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement "community."

All this is taking place amidst an increasingly perfected "fusion" of the police and military functions both within the US and abroad, where the phenomena is referred to as "peacekeeping", or the "policization of the military". Here in America, all distinction between the military and police functions is about to be forever expunged with the looming repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. The latter, was passed after the Civil War to rein in the military. It bars federal troops from doing police work within United States borders, although strictly speaking, the Act refers only to the Army and the Air Force, not to the Marines or the National Guard in "state status." According to the New York Times:

"the Bush administration has directed lawyers in the Department of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement."

The Washington Post (7/21/02) put it a bit more starkly, stating that the Bush administration:

"has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on US soil."

In other words, the "New World Law and Order" based on the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, requires a system of domestic and global counterinsurgency led by the Pentagon.

The first requirement of this counterinsurgency, which is directed at all forms of social dissent is the "collection", "retention" and "dissemination" of information, information on anyone who resists, whether through violent means or otherwise. Recall, that the protests in Seattle and numerous other cities in recent years were more often than not classified within official DoD and FEMA documents as "terrorist events". The objective is to centralize all intelligence gathering under one roof, the Department of Homeland Security and to widely cast the net over all of us, making certain that we all fall in line with the Pentagon Inc. agenda.

To this end the myriad modes of intelligence gathering or "collection" have been beefed up: From CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) to Carnivore (e-mail spying), from the NSA's Echelon (global listening device), to spy satellite imagery, from FBI "roving wiretaps", to CIA access to grand juries and secret FISA "foreign intelligence" courts, the means, legal sanctions and technology of social control proliferate, are sanctioned, are demanded by a paranoid public. Homeland security requires manufactured insecurity. A bit of anthrax to keep em on their toes and minding their p's and q'sÂ…

Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS)
Typical of the need for "tactical (on the ground) intelligence" is the creation of TIPS or the Terrorism Information and Prevention System. Set up in January 2002 by Ashcroft's Justice Department, TIPS is described as a "national system for concerned workers to report suspicious activity". In fact, TIPS is a hotline to the National White Collar Crime Center, a Justice Department organization that deals with "economic crime" and cyberattack. For a little under a million bucks they plan to register all "suspicious, publicly observable activity that could be related to terrorism" and forward it to law enforcement and other agencies "opting to receive TIPS information." These agencies "would be responsible for determining how to respond to the tips they receive."

The "workers" that TIPS is willing to offer its hotline service are those in the transportation, trucking, shipping, maritime, and mass transit industries. The truckers, for their part, are jumping in with both feet. The trucker magazine FleetOwner recently noted (6/1/02) that:

"attempting to stay ahead of Federal regulators charged with securing US transportation networks from terrorist attacks, the American Trucking Assns. has readied a 'Neighborhood Watch' program for the nation's highways."

The ATA's "Anti-Terrorism Action Plan", geared to keeping the "wheels of commerce" rolling, envision a plan in which "a potential 3 million professional truck drivers will be trained to spot and report any suspicious activities that might have terrorism or national security implications." As if truckers don't have enough on their minds, although it might be wise for them to keep their eyes wide open.

It seems that the Bush administration concern for workers knows no bounds. According to the New York Times (8/!4/02) President Bush wants to exempt all homeland security coordinated agencies "from collective bargaining requirements if (he) were to determine that our national security demands it." Little known to the public, the president is seeking not only to "exempt agency employees from federal labor relations rules and prohibit them from joining unions", but he's also prepared to force them to work, under the conditions he chooses, if "national security demands it". The "flexibility" that Bush is calling for, a "fast moving homeland security department unfettered by work rules and red tape" is sure to result in a lot less "flexibility" on the part of workers who may soon be confronted with a form of involuntary employment during "times of war", all set out in Department of Defense directives.

Financing Homeland Defense
TIPS, which is an integral part of the CitizenCorps/FreedomCorps/AmeriCorps axis of patriotic, police loving do-gooders, is buttressed with funds from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). In the wake of 9/11, CNCS was fully integrated into "homeland defense efforts". In March 2002, the Corporation issued a "notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security." With an emphasis on "public safety" and "freeing up police time", the grants offered under the announcement "are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front." In the area of "public safety" the grants "will help provide members to support police departmentsÂ…in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers." Now mind you, the volunteers "are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groupsÂ…" They also "organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problemsÂ…"

In July 2002, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge announced, while sitting in a Washington DC police station, the first round of CNCS homeland security grants totaling $10.3 million, an "initiative" that is to involve some 37,000 volunteers nationwide. One recipient of a $484,000 Corporation grant, based in NYC, is the Center for Court Innovation. Linked to the NYC Public Safety Corps, the grant "will enhance homeland security by assisting criminal justice officials (police, probation officers, judges) as they perform their dutiesÂ…(while) 40 full time AmeriCorps members willÂ…free up policeÂ…to address conditions of disorder that if left unchecked create a climate where crime would flourish."

In NYC, ground zero for the attack, homeland defense equates to the same old thing, cracking down on "disorder" (protest) and "quality of life crimes", which is a racist police code for arresting and jailing more poor people.

The euphemism of "homeland defense", codified within the halls of the Pentagon as early as the mid-1990's, long before 9/11, buttressed with various Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, includes, within the doctrinal rubric of "operations other than war", continual training to suppress dissent, or as it is conveniently phrased, to put down "civil disturbance." The decades old "Garden Plot" operation, which is the Pentagon's stand alone "civil disturbance" plan, has become generalized in the "homeland defense" concept and it's focus on the "asymmetric threat". With the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense, Homeland Security Council etc. the Bush administration is seeking to institutionalize it's "permanent war" against "terrorism", dovetailed with it's ongoing war against dissent.

So while Garden Plot directives, geared for domestic use, are exported to "peacekeeping" troops abroad, "homeland defense" tightens the grip at home. The recent appointment of General Ralph E. Eberhart and the creation of a Northern Command within the Pentagon reflect the depth of commitment the elite have to maintaining "full spectrum dominance" at home.

With "the PATRIOT Act" and other legal monstrosities foisted upon the people, what emerges is a repressive "coordination" (as the Nazis used to call it) of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military, in the interests of a "permanent" counterinsurgency, by way of the centralization and broadening of surveillance capabilities, arrest capabilities, and harassment capabilities, which target anyone corporate America doesn't like. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.

Global Counterinsurgency
The "war on terrorism" is a global counterinsurgency whose aim is to wipe out any and all resistance to US global hegemony and corporate domination. Utilizing "operations other than war" (OOTW), corporate America and it's military are taking a more direct, hands on approach to the needs and requirements of corporate globalization. OOTW, with its host of new missions (e.g. peacekeeping and civil disturbance operations), is based on a pre-emptive doctrine. In this new war, which relies on both standard means of killing along with so-called non-lethal weapons, so-called " non-combatants" (i.e. civilians) become the primary target. And in so doing, the military, via its OOTW doctrine, is violating one of the sacred tenets of the so-called "laws of war", namely, that militaries not target civilian populations. But after all, as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld noted in a (12/12/01) statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the "enemy" "hides in caves abroad", and more importantly, "among us here at home."

Now, despite the fact that both the Presidential and military directives target "non-United States citizens" (as if that's not bad enough), in June 2002, the Bush administration jailed a New York City man of Puerto Rican descent, Jose Padilla - or as he now calls himself - Abdullah al Muhajir, and is holding him in a military brig in South Carolina. He has yet to be charged with any crime. Like the hundreds of Muslim immigrants still being held in detention since September 11, he is considered a "material witness" to the investigation of the attack. And yet, rather than have him subject to the discretion of Federal courts, he was handed over to the military as an "enemy combatant" after Ashcroft and the Pentagon talked it over. At that moment, Padilla was taken out of his New York prison cell and transferred to a US Navy brig in South Carolina. His attorney, Donna Newman of NYC was not informed of his transfer and has been denied access to her client. Even the Washington Post, which has backed virtually all of the repressive measures of the Bush administration since September 11, wrote at the time of Padilla's jailing that:

"the governments actions in this latest case cut against basic elements of life under the rule of law" and that "if its positions are correct, nothing would prevent the president - even in the absence of a formal declaration of war - from designating any American as an enemy combatantÂ…If that's the case, nobody's constitutional rights are safe."

This "chilling legal precedent" is but the tip of the iceberg of the complete subsuming of normal judicial processes to the growing militarization of law enforcement and jurisprudence.

"Homeland defense", as we experience it today, has been percolating in the bowels of the Pentagon and corporate think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations, along with their Congressional counterparts, for nearly a decade. What it required was an emergency situation. The "homeland security" apparatus presently being constructed is modeled roughly after the military's "combatant command structure" and is --in the wake of 9/11– set within the context of the "laws and customs of war", hence the introduction of military courts and the shifting of jurisdictions for so-called "crimes associated with terrorism". The Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, whose job as of October 1st is to patrol America, will head up this homeland defense "command structure".

Concurrent with the round-up of over a thousand people following the September 11 attack, many of whom have been held in solitary confinement, with no charges being filed, President Bush signed in November 2991 order, establishing military "tribunals" for those non-citizens accused, anywhere, of "terrorist related crimes". According to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the order violates the constitutional separation of powers:

"[It] has not been authorized by the Congress and is outside the President's constitutional powers"... the order strips away a variety of checks and balances on governmental power and the reliability and integrity of criminal judgments... [T]he order undermines the rule of law worldwide, and invites reciprocal treatment of US nationals by hostile nations utilizing secret trials, a single entity as prosecutor, judge and jury, no judicial review and summary executions."

Department of Defense Military Commission Order No.1, issued March 21, 2002, is concerned with "procedures for trials by military commissions of certain non-United States citizens in the War Against Terrorism." The "commissions", according to the order, "shall have jurisdiction over violations of the laws of war and all other offenses triable by military commission." Overseen by a "military officer" who will "admit or exclude evidence at trial", the "prosecutor" would be a "special trial counsel of the Department of Justice." On the defense side, well, one could opt to go with the DoD's version of the public defender, namely another "military officer", or one could secure an attorney. Although "the Accused may also retain the services of a civilian attorney of the Accused's own choosingÂ…at no expense to the United States Government", this would only be possible once it "has been determined" that the civilian attorney is "eligible for access to information classified at the level of SECRET or higherÂ…" In other words, to get any kind of impartial and efficient legal representation in Mr.Rumsfeld's court, your attorney has to be cleared by the Pentagon.

Angel: Get a life okay? Comments are for comments by people. Not regurgitating other posts. It is very difficult to carry on a convesation with pages of dribble being posted. If you have something to say, type it yourself. Don't make me IP ban you please.

I hear a lot of talk here about world war two and fascism, though what about Vietnam? Remember, the war America LOST.

America has shown restraint post 9/11?!?!? What do you call blowing up Afghanistan?

The fact of the matter is you can't dominate people by killing them. Dead people can't work at McDonalds, or make sneakers or whatever. All you do is shift who gets dominated. You blow up the third world and you'll have to make your own damn sneakers.

The reason people don't like America is simple. Its not religion, its not culturally difference, its not modernity, its the fact that you control/consume most of the world resources. People who would rather die than give America their stuff [namely oil] or work for you for virtually nothing are absolutely a threat to the American 'way of life.'

I hear a lot of talk here about world war two and fascism, though what about Vietnam? Remember, the war America LOST.

What about it? I don't recall the US invading North Vietnam. I don't recall the US nuking North Vietnam. How much more restraint could the US have shown there? Its restraint is why it "lost".

America has shown restraint post 9/11?!?!? What do you call blowing up Afghanistan?

Blowing up Afghanistan? Woha. How do you define blowing up a country?

The fact of the matter is you can't dominate people by killing them. Dead people can't work at McDonalds, or make sneakers or whatever. All you do is shift who gets dominated. You blow up the third world and you'll have to make your own damn sneakers.

The middle east supplies very few sneakers.

The reason people don't like America is simple. Its not religion, its not culturally difference, its not modernity, its the fact that you control/consume most of the world resources. People who would rather die than give America their stuff [namely oil] or work for you for virtually nothing are absolutely a threat to the American 'way of life.'

There are plenty of reasons not to like "America". I don't like France myself. But there's a big difference between not liking someone and working actively towards killing every man, woman, and child in a country.  The Twin Towers, in case you weren't aware, was not some military base. It was a civilian office building that had in it typically between 50,000 and 150,000 people depending on the time of day. If their timing had been just slightly better, instead of 3,000 deaths there could have been 30,000 deaths. Their intent was certainly to murder as many Americans as they could do.

Fortunately for them, Americans are a peaceful people who have shown great restraint. The US could have "blown" up Afghanistan. Literally wiped it off the face fo the earth so that no living being lived. That is what blowing up is. Supporting the Northern Alliance and sending in aircraft to attack specific targets is quite a different thing.

The argument isn't whether the United States is right or not. The point is that it's ultimately irrelevant. Shoulda, woulda, coulda is pointless when you get to basic survival. If Americans ever feel their actual physical survival is at stake, they will do what anyone else would do - try to eliminate those who they believe are the source of that threat.

It's the same thing with Militant Islam - right or wrong, they believe that the United States is a threat to their existence (as a culture anyway). And they are doing whatever they can do to eliminate the United States. So far that has been with conventional weapons and suicide bombers because that's all they have available. This has given the United States the luxury of trying to contain that threat through relatively precise means. But if the terrorists ever got ahold of nukes, that situation would likely change.

Terrorism can't be eliminated. But it can be reduced to a great degree. It's not just any old people doing these atrocities, it's a particular group of people of a particular religion from a particular part of the world. And if it became a choice between us and them, Americans would choose us and "them" would disappear regardless of the collateral damage.

So the best thing for people in that part of the world of that particular religon to di is to clean house themselves. Eliminate the terrorists themselves while they are still in a position to do so.  Either they'll eliminate or reduce the terrorists or we'll try it ourselves.

 

 

Absolutely there is a boiling point to even the patient--Damn! I'm not going to take it anymore!

Brad, you argue well, but the justification of retalitating 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan is not the same as invading Iraq, which between the lines you really mean.

steven - I was answering the other guy who said "you responded to 9/11 by blowing of Afghanistan" which was simply put, an assanine statement for the guy to have made.

I consider Iraq a battle in the war on terror. I have never felt, nor do I think that Iraq was involved in 9/11. I simply think that for the safety of the United States that that entire region needs an overhaul and Iraq place to start going truly on the offensive. Afghanistan had to be done to disrupt Al Queda. Iraq was the first step to trying to enact region wide changes.

Whether it'll be successful or not I don't know. But I do think it was needed and Americans overwhelmingly support what we are doing and that is, ultimately, all that matters.

At the end of the day, the United States is a democracy and its government will carry out the will of the people.

DAMN RIGHT, for the imformation of the people here im english so im less involved. Its the Duty of the free west to defend the disadvantaged people of the world Diplomaticly, Economicly, Socaly and if push comes to shove Military intervention we should defend what we call basic freedoms of all peoples around the world look at the US constitution if you want to know what they are which is an item my nation is lacking (and if we get one it WILL never be what it should) so i say Hear Hear to the author of this

To all:

Does anyone really know why this country was created in the first place? We are here primarily beause of religious fredom, not freedom from religion, but freedom from the government requiring people to adhere to and support through taxes a state sponsored religion The Anglican Church of England. The people on the Mayflower cam ehere to worship freely as they saw fit. The earliest settlers including many of our founding fathers felt their move to the Americas was no different than the Jews move form Egypt into the Promised Land. The men who came here and created this country from scratch and their vision for it have become disorted by our simplistic views of what and who this nation really is.

We have allowed poeple of all beliefs to come and live here and persue their God given freedoms and rights. Yet it is these people along with many who were born here who complain that we expect people to follow certain rules and ideals. Well I for one believe this to be fact. T

Well not just religious freedom. But rather we wanted to create a country in which the people were in charge. Where we were free to live our lives however we wished without the government having the power to "Rule" us.  We would invest what powers we felt the government needed to funtion and nothing more.

The federal government ultimately does what the people of the United States want it to. The war on terror is something that the people of the United States not just want but demand. It's easy to lose sight of that fact when you have people on the left constantly making George W. Bush into some boogeyman. But poll after poll shows overwhelming support for what the US is doing. So don't blame Bush if you're against what is happening in Iraq, blame the American people.

 

To all:

Does anyone really know why this country was created in the first place? We are here primarily beause of religious fredom, not freedom from religion, but freedom from the government requiring people to adhere to and support through taxes a state sponsored religion The Anglican Church of England. The people on the Mayflower cam ehere to worship freely as they saw fit. The earliest settlers including many of our founding fathers felt their move to the Americas was no different than the Jews move form Egypt into the Promised Land. The men who came here and created this country from scratch and their vision for it have become disorted by our simplistic views of what and who this nation really is.

We have allowed poeple of all beliefs to come and live here and persue their God given freedoms and rights. Yet it is these people along with many who were born here who complain that we expect people to follow certain rules and ideals. Well I for one believe this to be fact. THIS COUNTRY WAS DEVELOPED AND CREATED USING GODLY PRINCIPLES BY GOD FEARING MEN WHO SAID WE AS A NATION BELIEVE THIS TYPE OF RELIGION TO TRUE, HOWEVER ANYONE CAN WORCHIP ANY WAY THEY PLEASE. They chose this because of their belief which follows biblically that no person can force a religion on you. God himself doens't tell you what you have to beleive He gives you the free will to choose for yourself. God states there are consequences for the wrong choice. The government says there are none.

We as a nation have set unrealistic goals and expectations on our leaders to meet the needs of every single person and their individual ideals in every decision they make. How can that be possible. Raise the taxes on the rich, since they currently pay close to 50%of all the taxes already because i who don't have much am jealous. The government should give health care o me because that is right...where is that in the constitution. And every other insane complaint from the ungrateful people who have been blessed beyond belief to live here. How about that poor Iraqi who lives on $500 a year. And there are plenty more examples of that around the world. Yet there is no one here who lives like that anywhere in this nation.

We worry about unemployment and only 5.6% of us don't have jobs. And most because they won;t take the job they could get they want the job the feel they deserve and don't have to work for. You are all spoiled as I. I complain because ther is nothing on my 150 channels of cable tonight. Others else where are wondering where they might get a meal this month.

We live in the richest most blessed country the earth has ever known, and still there are those out there that complain. It is pretty simple...you want health care like Canada...go live there. Want Socialism and healthcare for all and taxes above 50%... go move to England. Whatever ltype of government and lifestyle you would like to have go find it and move there. The USA is so terrible that there are millions of our citizens leaving to go and find peace and safety in other countries...NOT.

We critcize the government and our president for creating an unbalanced budget yet we as a society borrow in our own personal lives way beyond what we can afford. You are hypocrites.

We worry that the bus isn't running on time and we might be late to the bar to meet our friends and play some pool...meanwhile some child is mourning the loss of his family who was just killed by some terrorist bomber on the bus ride home form work.

People it is time for us as a nation to stand up and stop all this pandering.

Yes you can believe anything you want but don't tell us the faith we as a country was founded on is wrong.

No you don't deserve to be given anything from the government except...the protection for anyone, anywhere that may seek to harn us or any of our neighbors or allies.

Yes most of us agree on 99% of what our government does...so stop whinning about the 1% that will only benefit some small group.

If the politicains that feel bad for all the poor people why don;t they start doling out ther millions to help all the disadvantaged that they claim need the help.

Yes be happy and thankful we have the ability to pay taxes to support a government that is better than anyting else out there...or move to Rawanda and fight for a loaf of bread to feed your family once a month.

Don't threaten us with any harm...we did nothing to hurt any of your people...I challenge anyne to name an instance...other than the indians(we really screwed up there...we are only human) thatwe as a nation prevented a people from expanding or wiped outa group only to further our government.

I could go on and on but enough....I am proud of where I live and am thankful to live where I do. And for those who think everything here is terrible...well there is a company out there that is beggin to help you...DELTA IS READY WHEN YOU ARE!
Take them up on it I'm sure you'll be back.

I am an American. I was born in the US., and have traveled all over the world (including the middle east) and have experienced anti-American bias first-hand. When I could actually engage these people in conversation, they could rarely give rational arguments for the way they feel about Americans.
One thought that has popped in several responses here is that 'if America weren't such a big, powerful, wealthy country, nobody would hate them'. (I am condensing and paraphrasing several statements here)
Just because a nation is powerful, or wealthy is not justification to attack them or even to hate them.
Regardless of political and economic issues, there is no justification for the outright attack of civilians.
Any nation who is attacked in such a way has every right to defend or retaliate against attack. Any country, not just the ones you like.
Afghanistan was mentioned several times, but there was no mention that Afghanistan was harboring the people responsible for the 9/11 attack, or that they were given the opportunity to turn over these people for trial. Afghanistan's government made the choice to refuse, even though they were warned that by doing so an attack would be launched. Also, no mention is made of the fact that the majority of the Afghan people were being oppressed by their government. Only 'the poor defenseless Afghan nation'.
As to WWII, remember, the United States remained neutral until directly attacked. That should have been a message to those thinking of attacking again. Any nation will fight back when attacked. The US is viewed as the bad guys because they have the means to do so.
While the arguments against invasion of Iraq will likely go on for years, the bottom line is that after 9/11 American has publicly declared war on any nation which harbors, aids, trains, or supplies terrorists with an agenda of more attacks against American civilians. Iraq had the largest army in the middle east and was, from a military standpoint, the most sensible target because it sends a strong message to other countries who aid terrorists.
I am certainly no advocate of war. I am former military, and lost my own father to war. Nevertheless, wars are sometimes a necessary evil when diplomatic means fail.
Yes, this is the first time America has gone to war in this manner. Yes, there are always going to be those who speak out against it. I, for one, am very thankful that I can speak my mind without fear of being thrown into prison or executed for doing so. Is it right? No, it isn't right that anyone has to be at war with anyone. Is it justified? I believe it is.
My opinion, for what it's worth.

Well said Mason.  And that's what I've seen here.  Almost everyone who writes anti-American dribble is hard pressed to actually articulate a good reason for their rants.

You end up with "America invaded Iraq for its oil" and other such nonsense. I suspect that most of these people are unaware that the United States is the world's largest oil producer. Oil, while vital, is simply not valuable enough to actually conquer a country for it.

If you look at history, the US most probably approximates Rome around the first or second century CE, or Great Britain in the 19th century, at least in terms of relative power and prestige. A very powerful nation that is both loved and vilified. Yes, we do use our overwhelming power, but not always, and not in every situation. We use it and will continue to use it for the forseeable future to protect what we see as OUR interests whether or not some other nations disagree with us. Every nation, including the US, has always needed to secure some support; but any leader who deferred critical decision making to the accord of other nations or international councils would be derelict in their duties. Those decisions are subject to the scrutiny of the world and many may cry out against their injustice; but it is our right and our duty to defend ourselves in whatever manner WE feel is appropriate. As with all great nations, the power of the US is bound to wane over time. We may reap what we have sown. We cannot see the future. We can only act now as we think necessary. I believe many outside the US don't realize how much debate this issue has caused within the US. Before the Iraq war began, months of political wrangling took place. Congress even acquiesced in the timid manner of the Roman Senate and gave the President the power to conduct a war without carrying out its responsibility of actually declaring a war. Only the hands of time will be the judge of our actions (other than God), and contemporary pundits be damned.

Just to correct a few small inaccuracies,

Iraq is not the first war the US entered in this manner. American history is littered with examples of it flexing it's might despite international opposition and condemnation. Everything from Mexico, to Panama, to Grenada. And for the record (before someone looks foolish trying to shoot me down on this), I did support the American invasion of Iraq. I was just not stupid/gullible enough to believe it was about WMD.

Second point: Oil revenues ARE a good enough reason for war. Look at Japan in WW2 for an example. Resources are KEY to an industrialised nation and they will do anything to keep those resouces flowing. America may be the worlds largest oil producer, but have you done the reserves versus usage numbers. America is in big trouble with estimates of it's reserves running out in 15-30 years times. Some oil reserve and production facts ("Decline in world crude reserves is first since '92", by Alan Petzet, Oil and Gas Journal, December 20, 1999.)

Worldwide Reserves and Production by Region:

Asia Pacific:
Reserves - 43,985,239 b/cd
Producing wells - 89,386

Western Europe:
Reserves - 18,610,584 b/cd
Producing wells - 6,448

Eastern Europe:
Reserves - 59,024,435 b/cd
Producing wells - 6,448

Middle East:
Reserves - 675,635,910 b/cd
Producing wells - 11,516

Africa:
Reserves - 74,889,547 b/cd
Producing wells - 8,239

Americas:
Reserves - 143,895,506 b/cd
Producing wells - 664,857

Total World
Reserves - 1,016,041,221 b/cd
Producing wells - 917,815

Less than 15% of the world's oil reserves are in the America's (including south america). American government would be failing it's people if it wasn't looking for ways to control a larger share of the reserves. They're not stupid. They can also do the Math. Oil is a very good reason for war.

Paul.

Interesting Article Brad, not very accurate to the argument at hand though and just goes to show the general attitude of the american right.
You say that Americans are not blood thirsty, and in the main I agree completely, however the truth is while the general populace is not the US adminisration is, and far worse than any other so called first world nation today, as for includions of other countries, whether you are correct or not in your assesment, this does not dispute the argument, rather it is meant to justify it. This is not a good thing as it makes the US as bad as the others, and right up there with the so called baddies. I find in most of your arguments Brad , a theme of everyone else is doing so are we so what. Interesting why raise the bar and be the so called leaders of the free world when you can be just another grubby imperialist with little regard for the rhetoric espoused by yur administration. Agorance is always the downfall of many great nations.

Oh by the way Brad the rest of us are humans as well.

I think what Brad's pointing out is that those who are criticizing America as if it is the only country guilty of such actions are acting like hypocrites. Sure, America does worse than any other country in the world, but it also does better. It might be better if we were a country that did nothing for the world like Switzerland, but maybe we're a double-edged sword that countries take for granted.

Islam is not the enemy, nor is America. We are all human, of the same species, and we must get along now before it's too late. Uniting the planet is the only logical way to survive at this point. But before we unite, we must all accept that we are equal, of common fate, and that God was invented by humans. Anybody without the capacity to understand must not be killed, but only enlightened by peaceful means. It is the fault of those before us that we have religious beliefs that shroud our eyes from the truth. Now we must make sense of the errors of the past and move on. The meaning of life is to be alive. We all know that our purpose is existence, survival and reproduction. As humans commonly do, we are making things more complicated than they need to be. If we actually feel "threatened" by our own species, it is definitely time we have a look inside ourselves. I don't think it's humanity that is threatened, but religion. Think about it. There does not need to be talk about killing, or talk about Islam giving in to the west. It is not only Islam that honours a higher power. The Christian God and the Muslim God are the same God. God is another man's opinion about the universal question "What is this place, who am I, and why?" If you were educated in America, or Canada, you know that science might not have the answer right now, but it's getting close. Even if there is a God, science could probably figure it out. RPL