Beinhart: Silence = More War

[wiggs]

If the invasion of Iraq was not a matter of self-defense -- however much the definition was stretched -- and it was not sanctioned as collective action -- it was a war of aggression.

There are no mitigating circumstances, except, perhaps, the silence.

The silence, vast and still, came from the media. It came from our other politicians. From our historians, lawyers and generals, from our priests, ministers, rabbis and imams, who failed to step forward and say, wait, once upon a time we said that waging an aggressive war was the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Once upon a time we hung people for the crime of waging an aggressive war.

We are continuing that war. We have already begun the preparations for another war.

Beinhart's compelling article makes the case that in order to avoid the next war we need to: 1) examine the legality of the last one, and 2) stop complicit silence. Worth the read. Can't argue with much except that I had a different definition of preemptive vs preventive war.

Most on DU would agree with the article...I wish, though, that he would have examined WHY media, dem leaders, and the public have been relatively passive and silent on the FUNDAMENTAL questions of what we are doing in Iraq and Iran. This remains a mystery to me.

"In the Silence, War Continues"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/in-the-silence-war-conti_b_19495.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. recommended

http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Village Idiot]

2. Most people realize that further navel-gazing is unnecessary.

It was and is an agressive war, as was and is the war with Afghanistan. There aren't any "IFs." The USA will reap what it sows in both places, I believe.

[wiggs]

3. Disagree. Examination of what went wrong is not navel gazing

What happened re Iraq with respect to intelligence gathering, manipulation of intelligence, reporting, congressional oversight, opposition party complicity is not only important with respect to Iraq (happened only 3 years ago) but VERY pertinent to avoid the same mistakes in Iran. I agree with Beinhart that mistakes and misdeeds have never been fully discussed in national discourse and that the topic is too important to brush aside.

Further, I'll say it is the same phenomenon can be seen in nearly every policy area, where there's a lot wrong with adminstration policy in: environmental, education, election reform, social spending, medical care, foreign relations, disaster preparedness, national security, etc.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Yep. Afghanistan was Bush's Rhineland.

In Afghanistan he conflated Bin Laden with the government of Afghanistan, with the claim that 'governments that harbor terrorists are equal to the terrorists themselves'. This would mean that the US government could be held responsible for the myriad RW white supremacist terror organizations in the US, which we take only half-hearted measures against after specific egregious incidents like the murder of Alan Berg or the OK City bombing.

We let him get away with that, which allowed him to move on to Iraq on the same rationale. That would make Iraq Bush's Poland. Everybody got upset about it, but not much really happened. What happens in Iraq stays in Iraq.

When we move against Iran, the phony war will be over. Iran will be Bush's France and Low Countries. That's when the shit will hit the fan as the world will unite against us.

[acmavm]

5. Well, I know that there were people here on Omaha who

weren't silent. And they went to jail. Or were hit by police officers with clubs. Or maced.