[Peace-discuss] A new left/right antiwar movement?

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

One cynical description of Libertarians is that they are immoral people 
who dont want to pay their taxes.

However, one can hardly imagine a more immoral position than support for 
the Endless War.

"Simon Black" had this to say in his Sovereign Man newsletter today--

****


Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field

Date: March 22, 2011
Reporting From: Denver, Colorado, USA


Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise 
missile? It's beyond description. Standing in the impact area, it's as 
if nothing has ever existed there before.

It's naive to think that something with so much destructive power is 
unlikely to cause 'collateral damage.' I can only imagine the 
consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been 
unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any 
implication that military strikes are responsible for significant 
civilian casualties in Libya... while at the same time playing down 
America's role and the timeline for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires 
clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced 
fighting forces... it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering 
equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of 
voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and 
outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without 
getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all 
under the auspices of protecting civilians... but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN 
Security Council for their 'political courage,' taking action in the 
face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

"Political courage" is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for 
their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these 
decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions 
alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, "What I am opposed to is the attempt 
by political hacks... to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a 
rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income?--?to distract us 
from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through 
the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. 
A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on 
principle but on politics."

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal.  The 
UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which 'authorized' this invasion, 
expresses condemnation for Qadaffi's deleterious actions against his own 
people...

... nevermind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which 
produces only 10% of Libya's oil) where the US Navy's 5th Fleet is 
headquartered with front row seats to the show;

... nevermind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the 
situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

... nevermind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at 
regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

... nevermind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and 
morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking 
trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

... nevermind that you can't just step in, bomb some targets, step out, 
and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to 
materialize out of thin air;

... nevermind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to 
cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to 
ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. 
Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something 
is legal, it must be just... and if it's not legal, they'll pass a law 
or resolution making it legal... and hence just.

This is the way they operate-- using regulatory technicalities to wrap 
themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their 
agenda. As Tacitus said, "the more corrupt the state, the more numerous 
the laws."



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110323/d7655687/attachment.html>