The third addition to the 3 years and 2316 deaths ago the USA preempted a war with Iraq, series. NO BRAVERY ONLY SADNESS
After three years of turmoil and sickening mass horror...When should we again use pre-emption to go to war? Bush took this powerful tool of last resort and turned it into something viewed as a self indulgent ideology, ego maniacal drive towards aggressive militarism and staunch unilateralism, USA imperial corporate globalization and greedy excessive desire to possess the world's waning supply of oil.
Bush's Iraq war has made us weaker! If ever we will need to use the "strike first" strategy to protect ourselves against a REALTHREAT it will be seen not as a "best defense is a good offense" but as just another BULLY MANEUVER FROM THE SIMON LEGREE AMERICANS.
Please read the short article below on this Sunday March 19, 2006, the third anniversary of Bush launching his Bush Doctrine of preemptive war, an ideological plan to take sovereign countries and make them a part of the Neocon imperialist vision of "globalization".
Thank you, thinkingblue
When should U.S. attack first?
Only as last resort. Fri Mar 17, 6:58 AM ET
A year after Sept. 11, 2001, the USA was still smarting from the horrific blow, and the national mood was one of apprehension. Even though the United States had successfully routed the Taliban regime from Afghanistan, along with the al-Qaeda training camps they harbored, mastermind Osama bin Laden had gotten away. Fear of terrorists striking again on U.S. soil was high.
Into this heightened sense of vulnerability, President Bush introduced what would become known as the "Bush Doctrine" - the idea that the United States should strike at enemies before they strike first. As in sports, Bush said, the best defense is a good offense.
That idea, known more formally as "pre-emption," had always been a part of the U.S. defense arsenal. But rather than keep it where it needs to be, as a rarely mentioned and rarely used alternative, Bush made it central to his approach to the world. He trumpeted it, in September 2002, in a wide-ranging review called the National Security Strategy.
What happened next was a blunder of historic proportions that has made Americans less, not more, safe. The Bush Doctrine became the rationale for invading Iraq, a foe unrelated to al-Qaeda, three years ago this weekend. Better strike at Saddam Hussein, was the message, before he could strike at us with the weapons of mass destruction that, the intelligence showed, he was developing.
As the world now knows, the intelligence was wrong. Saddam had neither ties to bin Laden nor weapons of mass destruction. The cost of this misapplication of pre-emption - in U.S. lives, money and credibility - has been incalculable.
So what has Bush learned?
Officially, at least, not much. On Thursday, the White House published its first National Security Strategy since the one that enshrined the Bush Doctrine. Perhaps not surprisingly for an administration loath to admit error, the document casts Iraq as a pre-emption success. "With the elimination of Saddam's regime, this threat has been addressed once and for all," it declares. The pre-emption policy "remains the same."
Talk about learning the wrong lessons.
The Iraq invasion, far from being a success, provides a cautionary tale about just why strike-first needs to remain, as in the past, the final option. In Iraq, it vaulted to the top of the agenda. Key administration figures - notably Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - had been itching for a war with Iraq long before 9/11. After the terror attacks, they asserted links between Saddam and al-Qaeda where there was none. Because the administration rushed into war without building alliances, few countries joined in.
After three years of turmoil, Iraq stands on the brink of civil war. Al-Qaeda operatives who weren't in Iraq before have gone there to fight U.S. forces. Neighboring Iran is increasingly influential with Iraqi Shiites, compounding the nuclear threat Iran presents.
Worse, because of Iraq, the U.S. ability to use pre-emption in the future, when it might really be needed, is weakened. Most of the world sees the USA as a global bully and its intelligence as suspect. U.S. forces are overstretched. And getting backing for a new pre-emptive attack from a public made wary by the Iraq experience would be difficult.
Bush's trademark is to stick to his guns. Changing his approach now, at least publicly, is not his style. But there are signs that he might, in fact, have learned some of the lessons from Iraq.
The influence of the Iraq hawks is waning. A pragmatic secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is guiding a broad diplomatic charm offensive. And beyond the defensiveness over Iraq, the new security strategy emphasizes diplomacy.
In Iraq, the Bush Doctrine has been much like that Wild West dictum: Shoot first, ask questions later. Now it's time to return pre-emption to its proper place in U.S. foreign policy: for use only when the threat is imminent, the intelligence is bulletproof, and the use of military action is the last resort, preferably with allies on board. Then make sure you have a plan for what to do next.
ALSO READ:
The "Bush Doctrine" is the bald neoconservative justification of U.S. global military domination...
Are War and Globalization Really Connected?
DO YOU STILL FEEL SANE? IF NOT CLICK HERE TO
MAKE A CALL TO THE FUNNY FARM
YOU CAN BEAM ME UP NOW, SCOTTIE.
Thinkingblue
James Blunt is a gifted British musician that has seen war himself. He wrote a song called "No Bravery" while he was stationed in Kosovo. "Billy Pilgrim" uses that music in this powerful animation that captures the anguish of the war, and ends with the photo of Blake Miller. See it here. Another excellent flash animation, is done to the same song by the young woman who created PeaceTakesCourage.com. Check out Ava's work.
Warning very Graphic REAL PICTURES OF WAR
CAROLYNCONNETION - I've got a mind and I'm going to use it!
