A disturbing thought on "pre-emptive war"

[The Witch]

WJ this morning is asking open phones what we think of the strategy of pre-emptive strikes. Since I have no voice and the segment is practically over, I will bother DU with my opinion instead.

With the evidence we have that even before 9/11, the Bush administration was determined to take dramatic military action in the Middle East, I want to suggest: if the Arab world caught wind of this determination, then couldn't 9/11 be considered a "pre-emptive strike" on us?

If so, it was surely a poor one, as it didn't cause us to halt our plans. But I don't think that anyone would say that 9/11 was the right thing to do. So how on earth can we have the same strategy and consider it right?

[laruemtt]

1. i'm afraid they don't care

if it's right or not. they are blinded by greed and lust for power. we go pre-emptive and we want the rest of the world to be just like us? i'm afraid they have guaranteed we will be hit again, sooner rather than later. god help us all. :scared:

[EFerrari]

2. Have you ever noticed that Junior can't say a word about

our supposed enemies without sounding self referential?

[Speed8098]

3. Pre-Emptive Strikes should NEVER be policy.

This one was wrong, and any others would be wrong. Our military is in place as a DEFENSE, not an OFFENSE.

[KharmaTrain]

4. That's Tin Foil Territory...And There's Nothing Pre-Emptive Here

I correlate the argument that 9/11 was pre-meditated in the same boat as Iraq was responsible for the attack...it's used to serve an agenda and distort truth and reality.

Yes, the booosh regime was hellbent on some kind of military action in Iraq before 9/11, IMHO this wasn't really their justification at the time...they tried to separate the Saddam/WMD from Al Queda (to the point of booosh avoiding mentioning Bin Laden's name for a couple years) because Afghanistan was a war that was force on him while Iraq was the war of choice.

"Pre-Emptive War" is a major misnomer here as there was never any proven immediate or direct threat to the U.S. by Iraq when the invasion was launched. An example of what could be said was a justifiable strike was when Israel jumped the gun in June, 1967 and attacked their enemies before they were attacked...but there was no doubt of an attack and Israel's forcing the issue enabled the country to survive.

What this country did was an outright invasion of a sovereign state with no justifiable cause. A time will come when there will be an accounting of this disaster and those who were responsible will hopefully be held accountable for their actions...in the Haugue and in the history books.

It was good to hear most the calls were against any new booosh adventurism. Looks like some people have started to wake up.

[Harald Ragnarsson]

26. Misnomer indeed. Pre-Emptive is a completely made up word

There is no such thing as a Pre-emptive strike.

Hitler would have loved the word. Actually what it is is an unprovoked war of aggression and the Nuremberg Tribunals after WWII found that it was the most vicious crime of them all crimes against humanity. Now they use that term for any tin pot dictator they want to get rid of while committing said crime against humanity as they do it.

[LynnTheDem]

35. Nuremberg Tribunal; war of aggression = "the supreme crime"

And if there were justice in the world, bush & Cabal would indeed be sitting in the dock being tried for the supreme crime.

[chefgirl]

5. What surprises me

Im shocked that I haven't heard anyone in the media plugging the pieces together and realizing that this was the exact same drumbeat they started with when it came to Iraq. Admittedly, the hours I work might have caused me to miss it if anyone has, though.

Now they want to start making the American people think of Iran as the biggest threat to our safety, so time to drag out that old preemptive argument again.
We've already been treated to countless reports about Iran being responsible for the manufacture of most of the IEDs in Iraq, next we'll be hearing about the mushroom clouds over major cities and on and on.

The danger, of course, is that Iran, unlike Iraq, might actually have nefarious intentions toward the U.S., but if they do, you would be hard pressed to make me believe it at this point.

The little idiot is the BIGGEST threat to American safety and security that I have ever witnessed in my lifetime.

-chef-

[Tesha]

6. 9/11 was the continuation of a long-term war.

We are in a de facto state of war with extra-territorial
Islamic fundamentalists. We've been in this state of war
for a long time, certainly since as far back as Bush I's
1991 war to "liberate" Kuwait (and their slant-drilling
for oil into Iraqi territory), certainly since Bush I's
imposition of deadly sanctions and no-fly zones on Iraq,
and certainly since the original 1993 World Trade Center
bombing. 9/11 was just the latest skirmish in that de
facto war; it's notable only that it was the first attack
on our Fatherland, excuse me, homeland that was particularly
effective.

One might well argue that the de facto war has been going
on since the 1949 establishment of Israel in land that
had been Palestinian for quite some time. One might even
argue that it stretches back farther than that, to colonial
adventures by some of our friends.

But it serves Bush II's purposes to forget all this
history and pretend that 9/11 was the opening of
aggressions in his new state of Permawar.

Tesha

[CJCRANE]

8. 9/11 wasn't what it seems:

it was manned and funded by Bush's "allies" and gave him an excuse to attack their enemy Iraq (a country which had nothing to do with 9/11).

edit: to change subject line.

[leveymg]

7. 9/11 was a preemptive strike

Many have wondered why Bush refused to roll-up the UBL cells before the 9/11 attacks. After all, in August the CIA told him that six dozen al-Qaeda cells were inside the US, and they were planning air hijackings and attacks on symbolic targets in NY and DC. All that was in the 08/06 PDB.

Part of the reason is that he was on vacation. Some things can wait. Actually, there was a Principal's Meeting (the top intelligence policy group) scheduled for 9/12 at which the brand new, lower, wider, longer GOP-designed counter-terrorism strategy was due to be rolled out. That's why Pakistani ISI Gen. Ahmad was in Washington on 9/11.

Unfortunately, bin Laden got the drop on them.

That's why all those memos and warnings and PDBs were ignored. To do anything dramatic beforehand would have disrupted their nice, neat little political plan.

- Mark

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. If Bin Laden was the real perpetrator, why did he originally....

...deny any role in the attacks?

Why is the "Osama" we see in the video where he allegedly claims responsibility so different from the photos of Osama before and after that video?

Your comments seem to indicate that Herr Busch had no foreknowledge of 911. I beg to differ. The NeoCons knew the attacks were coming...the only questions in my mind are:

1. Did they let it happen on purpose (LIHOP),

...or...

2. Did they make it happen on purpose (MIHOP).

Herr Busch's "vacation" had nothing to do with 911, one way or the other.

[leveymg]

18. It's not a question of guilt or innocence, but of degree of culpability

There have been several Usama bin Ladens. There was UBL the rich, westernized playboy. UBL the devout Muslim scholar. UBL the Jihadist. UBL the CIA contractor. UBL the Saudi pariah. UBL the international covert operator with multiple clients. UBL the aspiring Calif/Mahdi. UBL the fugitive. All these are different, and all overlap. Since 9/11, there have indeed been several Usamas with different faces.

As for foreknowledge by Shrub, like Reagan, he's a useful idiot. He was told in general terms what was up -- read the 08/06/01 PDB -- but, could be counted on to do nothing proactive to stop it because of his mental laziness and lack of initiative beyond what his handlers advised. He is now a liability who has to be removed ASAP if the GOP is to keep their One-Party Totalitarian State. But, these things take time. The coming constitutional coup has been in the works for years -- that started on 9/11, but really got going after the Joint Chiefs and career CIA confirmed the hand of Ariel Sharon's intelligence agents behind the Niger yellowcake and Franklin OSP-AIPAC disinformation campaigns. The former led to the Iraq invasion and Plame outing, while the latter Track II of the operation was discovered before it led to military action against Iran two summers ago, and the Pentagon and CIA IGs sought prosecution. That's when Bush-Cheney got their walking papers.

In this context, you can see why it's unlikely that we're really going to bomb Iran - it's a fake out intended to delay Iran from the day that it absorbs half of Iraq and builds its own bomb. Bush-Cheney is playing it up as their parting heroic moment.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. 911 wasn't meant to be a preemptive strike. It was meant...

...to draw the U. S. into a long, drawn-out war in the Middle East.

The questions in my mind since the attacks of 911, are:

1. Who was the REAL planner of those attacks?
2. Who stood to gain the most by a long war in the Middle East?

As far as preemptive strikes are concerned, that should NEVER be U. S. policy.

[leveymg]

13. What al-Qaeda is and isn't

It isn't a stand-alone operation. riddled with double agents, led by an Agent Provocateur who, if he's still alive, is on standby for further contract work 365/7/24. Yet UBL is not entirely aware of whom he really works for, or what their agenda really is. He is steered by multiple control agents who are, in fact, working for false-flag intelligence organizations.

Qui bono? That's a long list. Think motive, opportunity, and means to cover it up afterwards, and that will narrow it down. Count on there being both inner and outer cover-stories, along with designated patsies and scapegoats, to throw investigators off the hunt.

Who do you think was the REAL planner? Answer that as strategic planner and tactical planner, recognizing that the latter may not know they were serving the agenda set by the former.

[EFerrari]

10. So, is Junior "reaffirming" his pre-emptive strike policy today

in order to derail criticism overe wiretapping? Or, criticism in general? What's the timing about?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. IMHO, he's letting the public know what they plan to do against Iran...

...Based on his earlier comments about the U. S. having the right to use preemptive nuclear strikes, it may not be a conventional-weapon attack that the NeoCons launch against Iran.

[Lerkfish]

15. that's what I've been saying all along: Iran preemptive nuclear attack.

its what they WOULD do if no one stopped them, therefore, tis what they WILL do.

[leveymg]

20. It's not as simple as Dubya picking up a red phone and ordering

a preemptive nuclear strike. Unless there's a mushroom cloud where the Pentagon once was, the Joint Chiefs have to sign off on it first. They're not going to do this thing just for the greater glory of Dear Leader and Darth Cheney. Not after Iraq and not after Treasongate.

The brass will go along with this little game of brinksmanship because it serves the useful purpose of covering US forces as they exit Iraq. It also slows down Iran's absorption of Iraq.

But, the US military command is not going to let themselves be used to jump into a war that can not be won and which would by all professional opinion greatly damage US interests. See, above.

[Lerkfish]

22. actually, I believe it IS just that simple.

I think we are witness to an american dictatorship. I believe Bushco believes there is nothing in their way, and I think they are correct. No objection against them has survived. Either through dismissal, blackmail, extortion or mysterious death, all valid objectors are eliminated as a credible threat.

I am saying I believe they have already greased that skid so that bush CAN use the football unencumbered.

[leveymg]

23. If you really believe that, you have two choices:

1) seek political asylum abroad; or 2) prepare for civil war at home.

I don't like either of those choices, and what they imply. Lose-lose.

Do what you will, but I'll continue to try to create alternatives, thank you.

[Lerkfish]

28. go for it. I wasn't trying to discourage alternatives, I'm saying it is

that simple at this point in time.
I doesn't mean I LIKE that, or wish it to continue.

Your asking me to leave the country or prepare for civil war seems over the top. Just disagree with me, don't label me.

[leveymg]

29. I didn't mean to label you. Sorry.

IMHO, nevertheless, it seems that your conclusions lead to a short list of options: fight or flee.

Let me ask you this. If you really believe that BushCo is going to start a war with Iran, and nobody can or will stop it, what other course of action might one have? I can think of only one other, and that's duck and cover. That seems most unattractive to me, as are the other two.

No way am I implying that this is a situation you or anyone else around here likes. I apologize for even that inference. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

41. no problem. However, I'm not sure what can be done to forestall

the inevitable.
bushco is going to have this war.

[leveymg]

42. Ultimately, that may be decided by the JCS

As I said, they really do have to sign off on any order involving the use of US military forces, particularly nuclear forces.

I don't think they're going to let a true preemptive attack happen. And, if the career law enforcement or intelligence got a whiff of another false-flag terrorist attack on the US, or some sort of conspiracy to start a war outside channels, those immediately involved would be made to disappear. The higher-ups would have helicopter accidents or fatal medical emergencies. Those are the unwritten rules of post-9/11 engagement.

[Lerkfish]

43. I would rather you be right than I.

but I fear the opposite is true. and I DO mean "fear".

[The2ndWheel]

14. Have any of them shown that they give a crap?

"If so, it was surely a poor one, as it didn't cause us to halt our plans."

No, it was the thing that was needed to put their plans into motion.

"So how on earth can we have the same strategy and consider it right?"

Well that's history in a nutshell.

The same way that Manifest Destiny was the right thing to do; because whoever has the power to do so, makes the rules.

[FloridaPat]

16. I thought this several times. * told the Taliban they would invade

if they didn't approve a US corporation from building the pipeline in Afghanistan. He was trying to get other countries together to invade Afghanistan from May on. There has been ample evidence of this since 9-11. He had the invasion plans by 9-11. I don't understand why American don't think other countries are allowed to defend themselves.

[donkeyotay]

39. Preemptive war - it's not just for America anymore

This supposedly "long standing" policy of bush's really just means that sovereignty is dead. If we can attack any nation's whose policies we find threatening, then so can China or any other nation. Talk about a slippery slope. Philosophically, it is dangerously destabilizing.

[Hobo]

17. Pre-emptive war

The Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive war is being trotted out now by this corrupt administration to set up the bombing of Iran. If we or the british don't make a move to bomb Iran, surely the Isrealis will. We can't have an "Islamic" bomb now can we. (of course this administration forgets or never grasps that Pakistan already has "Islamic" bomb) This is one of the PNAC principles "defend Isreal at all costs"

- Hobo

[Ufomammut]

19. What's happening was in the plans for years before 9/11

Which is why people within our government and military orchestrated the crimes of 9/11 as the required justifying public bolstering for all of the plans they had set to go. The phony "war on terror" is nothing more than the expansion of empire, and 9/11 was the needed justification. Governments have relied on this tactic throughout history;
problem, reaction, solution.

[dogday]

21. Since when did war powers authorize anything other

than preparatory first strike because of impending attack or attack itself. We know regime change is not a reason ever to go to war.. Have we not learned anything from Iraq?

[CrazyOrangeCat]

24. Nine out of ten experts agree:

"It's just fine to blow up brown people on trumped-up, bullshit charges!"

[EFerrari]

25. And sometimes get them to blow each other up

as they did in Central America, are doing in Iraq and seem to want to do in Venezuela.

[rman]

27. Because "we" are the good guys, and good guys can do no wrong.

Or so certain RW elements would have us believe. And a lot of "us" do believe just that.

[genie_weenie]

30. I think DUers need to be truthful on their views

about War.

America's history is replete (thank you Wonder Years) with instances of US Forces being used pre-emptively.

The question should be is War ever justified? Ever?

War is used by the State to grossly demonstrate it's power over not only it's own subjects but other State's subjects.

Think on this:

Germany never attacked the US in WWI or WWII.

FDR extended the lend-lease to the UK at a time when German tactics may have succeeded in bringing about a capitulation.

FDR had Atlantic patrols radio in German Sub positions to the UK and had US Convoys ferry ships past Greenland.

The US under Dewey's Chewies invaded and destroyed the Spanish Fleet at Manila Bay in the Philippines, for exactly what reason, other than the obvious one of taking the PI as an overseas conquest.

The Banana Wars the US landed in the Caribbean Islands and Central/South America too many times to list here.

The helping of Panama to break from Columbia to create a nice little pliant nation for the building of the canal.

Did any state have the right to secede from the Union after the adoption of the Constitution?

Does any state have that right now?

[raccoon]

37. "Germany never attacked the US in WWI or WWII."

No, they didn't. But after Pearl Harbor was attacked, the US declared war on Japan, and Germany declared war on the US.

(Dec. 11,) 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.
Three days ago, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm

[genie_weenie]

40. Okay but,

Roosevelt wanted to go to War with Germany. That's why I put in the efforts that FDR went through with the convoys, radioing Sub positions, and lendlease. So, it has been argued the US was at war with Germany prior to the Declarations.

Howver, politics of that day still demanded that a NAtion-State required a Casus Belli no matter how flimsy or transparent before declaring War.

[Sir Jeffrey]

31. No...

Because 9/11 was carried out by a non-state entity (unless it could be proven the CIA or some other govt'l entity bankrolled the act).

A better example of how the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" works would be that Iraq in February 2003, just before the invasion, could have launched a full scale attack on US interests in the region and on US soil in anticipation of an impending attack in full compliance with international law.

The pre-emptive war doctrine extends back to an old skirmish between the US and Great Britain in the early 1800's. The US Secretary of State at the time outlined what came to be the officially recognised standard of pre-emption throughout the world (basically, amassing forces near your border, breakdown in diplomacy, etc.)

Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Incident

[bigtree]

32. American exceptionalism

the assumption that we're superior to every other country by the virtue (and reflexive exercise) of our military forces.

Might, right. SOS

[wtmusic]

33. The Myth of Pre-Emptive Self-Defense

Best analysis bar none:

http://asil.org/taskforce/oconnell.pdf

[LynnTheDem]

34. Japan; preventive strike on Pearl Harbor.

Hitler; preventive strike on Poland.

America; preventive strike on Iraq.

Same shit; different assholes.

[newspeak]

38. to me, this cabal and their rich crony friends

are deliberately destroying the US--If they drown the government in debt, there sick corporate friends can run the country and steal even more than what they are doing now--but the scariest part is that corporations will have more control over us. It gives me chills just thinking about a sociopathic corporate entity having more power over us with no voice--it's fascism!!!!! Can you imagine private companies like Blackwater patrolling our streets--employees hired from the thugs of the world (like Pinochet's regime and from death squads). Nothing to protect us and no accountability for them. That is my fear, that the American experiment will die and we will be one of many of the third world exploited countries for the New (Old) World Order.

[WinkyDink]

36. We'd better hope no other nation adopts this Germany-1937 policy.