War Waged Without Obligation

[bigtree]

What if Bush didn't need to go to Congress to get approval to wage war? What if Bush could wage war from his Oval Office without a massive deployment of troops or weaponry that would need funding from a reluctant Congress? That's the future. I think Americans will buy it.

There is a disconnect from the horrors of war that our countryfolk have become comfortable with as our leaders and others who promote and prosecute the violence separate us from the bloody realities of the mindless destructive power of our weaponry, and the dangerous contradictions that undermine the premise of our military interventions. Apart from the dehumanizing of the targets of our aggression with the taunts, the name-calling, and the pistol-packing cowboy 'dead or alive' rhetoric thrown out like red meat to the cowed masses, Bush and his cabal are content to ignore the humanity of the inhabitants of whatever lands they choose as the whipping post for their contrived retribution.

In the countries this administration has chosen to invade and occupy, Iraq and Afghanistan, they have dismissed expressions of nationalism by the citizens of these sovereign nations in defense of basic prerogatives of liberty and self-determination as threats to our consolidation of power. Yanked from our peaceful, post cold war slumber by the suffering of one day of attacks by a rogue band of meglomaniacs and their hapless martyrs, our nation has been subject to Bush's paranoid slap-attack at the rest of the world with his eyes closed that began with his fearful flight around the country that day in Air Force One to "keep out of harms way".

His frightened tantrum ended with an opportunistic grab to usurp the power from a vanquished nation of innocents; a suffering class of people who were already devastated by the bombing of the first war, and by the economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. at the insistence of the U.S., which served to enrich Saddam Hussein and steadily impoverish and starve everyone else.

This administration pulled the nation into war to compensate for, and to draw attention from, their failure to apprehend the ringleader of the attack on the World Trade Center. President Bush made the appeal to the nation in a manner which exploited our deepest fears as he warned the nation about the potential for a future Iraqi assault on our country, or on our allies, of a magnitude that would far exceed the devastation of the horrendous suicide attack in New York.

Bush's strategy of preemption became his licence to release our aggressor nation from its responsibility to pursue - to the rejection of their last reasonable admonition - a peaceful resolution to Saddam's obstinence. And, with a deft flex of military and political muscle, the presumption of innocence, even in the face of a clear absence of proof is a conquered victim of the tainted consensus of a cabal of purchased adversaries. "(They're) either with us or against us."

Lincoln once remarked: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

That's what has, so far, satisfied our countryfolk to allow Bush to war on Iraq and Afghanistan, his careful stoking of the sparks of fear that flashed from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, his demagogic appeals to patriotism and to our nationalism. That's what allows him to indiscriminately bomb and strafe innocents who happen to be in the line of sight of his target, or standing in the way of his many different stated ambitions in that region. That is what allows Bush to avoid scorn from the citizens of our own nation for the collateral killings and maiming of innocents by our men and women in the military, from the air and on the ground, as they pursue this administration's war on anyone in their way.

The nation grieved for the victims of 9-11, as we should have, but we did so in an understandable bubble of grief and apprehension about who in the world we should regard as our enemy. Bush exploited those doubts and convinced a majority of Americans, along with the Pentagon/administration driven media, that we were now at war with a world of enemies, all aligned somehow with the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks.

"For a generation leading up to September 11, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response." Bush told the nation as he twisted Congress for $87 billion to continue his 'war on terror'. "Since America put out the fires of September 11, mourned our dead, and went to war," he warned "history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power."

Congress rolled over in the face of their own fear of being labeled weak and unpatriotic. Congress is supposed to be the body that decides whether we're at war. Through allocation of money and through the power inherent in that body to hold the president accountable to the law, Congress is supposed to be setting the limits on this 'war on terror' and any other military adventure the White House might dream up. Not many in the Capitol could successfully argue against giving Bush authority to use the military against "those responsible for the (9-11) attacks launched against the United States" at the time that the authority was given. But, I wonder how many senators and representatives actually want to take on the responsibility for our security in the face of the potential for another terror attack, made greater by Bush's arrogance. So, for that cowardice and others they are willing to cede the very authority that makes them relevant at all in our nation's use of the military.

There is no greater evidence of the dangers of corruption of the power and influence of our nations military than in the prosecution of the 'war on terror' by Bush. Congress seems to bend to any and all requests for money for Bush to do whatever he wants, overtly or covertly, with our military, its agents, and its weaponry as well. He's saturated with a new national security bureaucracy, but he's content to use the strength of our nation, our soldiers and our citizens in their vulnerability to attack, as a battering ram to force his rhetorical version of democracy wherever his ambition for greed and conquest motivate him. Congress can come together, if they had the will, and pull the plug on Bush's military meddling. One vote to modify Public Law 107-40 , Authorization for Use of Military Force, would put an end to Bush's prattling that the authorization to use our military against the group of thugs who orchestrated the 9-11 attacks is a license for him to evade the law and launch a jingoistic campaign of suspicion and snooping against anyone he deems related to his paranoid war.

That's the dirty little secret behind Bush's croc tears about Congress 'tying his hands'. He knows they're hiding behind him, crying phony tears of outrage at Bush's admitted abuse of authority in his spying 'program', giving him time to 'win' in Iraq, just to keep their visage out of the portrait of failure. Meanwhile, Bush is free to pose for the cameras and threaten them, and us, with the specter of defeat in this embellished terror war he's composed. But even Bush understands he has to weather the political levers Congress attempts to attach to the billions they appropriate to the Defense Dept. and other 'security' agencies. They would rather not have to come before the nation and ask for the money to sustain the endless progression of hapless men and women to the roulette of death in their theaters of war.

Rumsfeld actually has his own private army and intelligence branch with its own funding. From the Washington Post:

Rumsfeld's ambitious plans rely principally on the Tampa-based U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and on its clandestine component, the Joint Special Operations Command. Rumsfeld has designated SOCOM's leader, Army Gen. Bryan D. Brown, as the military commander in chief in the war on terrorism. He has also given Brown's subordinates new authority to pay foreign agents. The Strategic Support Branch is intended to add missing capabilities -- such as the skill to establish local spy networks and the technology for direct access to national intelligence databases -- to the military's much larger special operations squadrons. Some Pentagon officials refer to the combined units as the "secret army of Northern Virginia."

Known as "special mission units," Brown's elite forces are not acknowledged publicly. They include two squadrons of an Army unit popularly known as Delta Force, another Army squadron -- formerly code-named Gray Fox -- that specializes in close-in electronic surveillance, an Air Force human intelligence unit and the Navy unit popularly known as SEAL Team Six.

>>>>In pursuit of those aims, Rumsfeld is laying claim to greater independence of action as Congress seeks to subordinate the 15 U.S. intelligence departments and agencies -- most under Rumsfeld's control -- to the newly created and still unfilled position of national intelligence director. For months, Rumsfeld opposed the intelligence reorganization bill that created the position. He withdrew his objections late last year after House Republican leaders inserted language that he interprets as preserving much of the department's autonomy.

The money comes from within the defense budget, easy to approve a lot of it hidden under the guise of national security. Rumsfeld wants forces that are easily deployable, don't need big, public allocations (or a fanfare of pre-approval) from Congress, and are able to carry on several muckraking missions at once. This meshes with Bush's shuffle of the Pentagon succession line to elevate the new intelligence office over the traditional branches of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The new intelligence office is headed by Rumsfeld's neocon buddy, Stephen Cambone. No need to trouble us while they rape the treasury to wage their wars for greed and conquest.

-Geek Wars-

Most disturbing in the prosecution of these undercover wars is the insidious use of, so-called, predator drones to launch missile attacks on hideouts and vehicles where 'intelligence' claims there is a target of terror. The Air Force describes the MQ-1 Predator, long-range, medium-altitude, remotely piloted aircraft as a 'Joint Forces Air Component Commander-owned theater asset for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition in support of the Joint Forces commander'. The drones are equipped with two laser-guided Hellfire anti-tank missiles. The drones were originally intended for use in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The change in designation from an intelligence tool to an offensive one occurred in 2002 with the addition of the armed reconnaissance role.



CIA's Tenet approved the use of the armed drones right after the 9-11 attacks. In fact, targeting of bin-Laden by the CIA using the drones was approved by President Clinton. President Clinton But, even Tenet resisted the call to use the drones to carry out attacks. He thought the authority to wage armed aggression was the job of the military, not the CIA. Nonetheless, security insiders, like our hero Richard Clarke Richard Clarke who wrote in a memo to Rice criticizing the Tenet for impeding the deployment of unmanned Predator drones to hunt for bin Laden. According to the Washington Post, the memo urged “officials to imagine a day when hundreds of Americans lay dead from a terrorist attack and ask themselves what more they could have done.”

Who wouldn't get behind the prospect of striking down the nation's #1 enemy with a precision-guided tool operated from a safe distance, without the mess of dead U.S. servicefolks to muck up the approval of a shellshocked public? And what of those innocents who happen to be in the way of our missiles? Well, 'they're with us, or against us'.

A couple of days ago, we witnessed a brutal attack on a village in Pakistan by U.S. airstrikes which killed as many as 18 residents there as Bush claimed to have 'intelligence' that bin-Laden's deputy was having dinner in one of the homes bombed. The attacks were carried out by predator drones.

From the Frontier Post: http://frontierpost.com.pk/

"As many as eighteen persons have been killed and six fatally injured due to bombardment by the allied aircraft from Afghanistan on Friday.

The fourteen fatalities have been confirmed by ISPR, as briefed by Maj Gen. Shaukat Sultan.
The bombardment by the Allied forces, fell on Damadola Burkanday area of tehsil Mamoon in Bajaur agency at 3:00 am PST, completely flattening the homes of BakhtPur, Muhammad Rahim and Bacha Khan.
According to local eyewitnesses, fourteen members of BakhtPur family along with four others died, due to indiscriminate bombing. The dead included eight children, and four females. The dead included, 9-year old Nadia Bibi, 10-year old Sadiqa, 9-year old Tayyeb, 7 year old Zahid ullah, 5-year old Hussain Nawaz. Others included 20-year-old Ameer Muhammad, 25-year-old Nazir Muhammad, 50-year Noor Pari, 40-year old Shahi Badan, 30-year-old Qari Saeed, 30-year-old Tahira Bibi, and others. Some of the dead were unidentified.

The locals reported that the allied warplanes violated the Pakistani airspace from Afghanistan territory by 19 kilometers and targeted the said homes. The resultant explosions rocked the area far and wide, shattering windows.

The Bajur attack happened few days after Pakistan lodged protest with U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan about firing in the North Waziristan tribal area on Saturday night that had killed eight people.
Bajur border Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province, where Taliban and Hekmatyar-led Hizbe-e-Islami are active."

The attacks were directed by the CIA, or some shadowy branch of Rumsfeld's secret military. The Pentagon, however, immediately denied knowledge of airstrikes. No accountability, no fingerprints, just a mindless drone.



Air Force officials in March announced plans to expand their force of Predators to 15 squadrons from the existing three, while at the same time developing a “hunter-killer” version of the aircraft. The Air Force has proposed spending about $825 million to purchase 74 Predators over the next six years, augmenting the 68 now in service.

“Unmanned systems allow us to maintain our technological advantage and engage in high threat, non-permissive environments, while honoring the value of life we hold so dear,” Glenn Lamartin, the Pentagon’s director of defense systems, told lawmakers. He means American lives, of course. All others be damned, 'with us, or against us'.

According to John Lumpkin, "CIA Sent Drone to Save Rebel Leader," Associated Press :

"So far, there are four reported cases exist of the Predator-Hellfire combination being used. Two of these attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 13 innocent civilians. On February 4, 2002, a Predator Hellfire missile killed three Afghans scavenging for metal in the hills around Zhawar Kili, Paktia. On May 6,, 2002, a Predator fired a Lockheed missile at a convoy of cars in Kunar province, seeking to assassinate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but succeeded only in destroying a madrassah and killing at least 10 nearby civilians. On October 26,, 2001, the CIA sent a missile-armed Predator drone from Pakistan to protect Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who at the time was being tracked by the Taliban. That mission failed.

The lone reported 'success' of the Predator-Hellfire was the Wednesday, November 14, 2001, night attack upon a three-story hotel building south of Kabul, where fleeing Al Qaeda and Taliban had gathered and parked their SUVs. Predator imagery was used to call in F/A-18 jets, which bombed the building, reportedly killing a senior lieutenant of bin Laden, the Egyptian Mohammed Atef as well as others. As the survivors scattered Hellfire missiles struck fleeing vehicles."

So now, with the advancement of these offensive weapons, operated like video games from the safety of some stateside base, agents of our government, under the cover of blanket authorizations to fight terrorists which stretch back to the Clinton administration and are exploited by the present traitorous regime in the White House, American citizens can further detach themselves from the collateral killings that occur in their name, prosecuted by an oligarchy intent on using our military forces to dominate the world through their intimidation and violence.

There need not be rows of caskets draped with American flags anymore containing brave soldiers and airmen who are sacrificed in the name of whatever meddling ambition the president embarks on. Most Americans won't see the hasty graves of the victims abroad of the assaults of our predator drones, graves dug out of the hard ground which inhabitants endeavor to call their own. And, as they turn against us because of our aggression and support those in their own region who stand against the imposition of our false authority, they become the enemies Bush will use to justify the continuation of his perpetual war.

We all share the blame for Bush's aggression. Even those of us who fight against Bush carry responsibility for the killings and maiming done in our name. That's why we fight to speak truth to power and work to unseat the warmongerers and their enablers, but, the more we are detached from the instruments of our aggression, the more we become desensitized to the destruction. We are no less responsible for the prosecution of these wars than Bush is by the insulation of his authority and false mandate. Our opposition don't automatically release us from the responsibility for their unlawful abuses and slaughters. They just give us the illusion of clean hands. We are the merchants of their misdeeds. The employment of these air assaults, manned and unmanned, insulate the U.S. from the sacrifices of American life and limb that might otherwise restrain our citizen's support for Bush's increasingly domineering world aggression.

The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to these rouge, radical terrorist organizations who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtably alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process. It is immoral to support the genocide of a people that our own leaders would, if given free reign, commit to slaughter at the whim of their supposedly clean hands, in the name of liberation and justice. Does morality manifest itself in our ambitions or in our actions?

We have to come to grips with our individual responsibility to vigilance. We must care enough to involve ourselves in every instigation of democracy which confronts us. We must not allow ourselves to become detached from the consequences of the violence directed by our leaders, committed in our names. And we must turn back the mortgaging of ours and our children's future toil and tribute to the subsidizing of both of the Bush president's bloody and costly wars of opportunity, lest we doom ourselves to a legacy of blame for violence against those who find themselves in the way of our president's craven quest to conquer the world.

[bigtree]

1. .

[bigtree]

2. .

[bigtree]

3. .

[bigtree]

4. .

[bigtree]

5. just found my article published at information clearinghouse

god bless 'em

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11585.htm

[Horse with no Name]

6. Congrats

And a K&R.
:thumbsup: Nice work.

[bigtree]

7. thanks

:)