|
 Pre-emptive strikes were something unheard of prior to Israel's employment of them to cripple any power in the Middle East that might eventually be used against Israel. This was certainly the case in Israel's bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq.
The reasoning that sanctioned such a strike went like this: Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, is an Israeli antagonist. Iraq would therefore destroy Israel if it had an opportunity to do so. The acquisition of nuclear power would ultimately give Iraq the opportunity to destroy Israel.
The flaws in that reasoning have never been effectively analyzed; and if they have, they've been ignored. Thus, what the Israelis called a pre-emptive strike was no less than an attack as vicious to Iraq as the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was to America. Iraq, unlike America however, was in no position to respond to that attack.
What are the flaws in the reasoning behind Israel's attack? First and foremost, it ignores the reasons for Iraq's antagonism toward Israel, and that is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians in the lands occupied by the Israelis. Next, and most importantly, even if Iraq developed a nuclear warhead capability from a nuclear reactor capacity, they would hardly use that capability to bomb Israeli occupied Palestine. Such an act would not only damage Israel; it would kill and injure more Palestinians than Israelis.
Now, the same kind of reasoning is taking hold of the US government. According to this, the best defense is sometimes a good offense.
"Defending the U.S. requires prevention, self-defense and sometimes preemption," explained Rumsfeld on January 31, 2002. "Defending against terrorism and other emerging 21st-century threats may well require that we take the war to the enemy. The best, and in some cases, the only defense, is a good offense."
Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have publicly applauded Israel's destruction of the Iraqi reactor. Cheney's comments were made when he was defense secretary at the height of the Gulf War. Rumsfeld made his remarks as George W. Bush's secretary of defense.
What is it that the US is planning to defend against with offensive, pre-emptive strikes against Iraq or Iran or North Korea, the countries labelled by Bush Jr. as the "Axis of Evil"?
None of the September 11th disaster can be attributed to any of these countries. The alleged culprits were Saudi nationals sponsored by Al Qaeda and supported by the Afghanistan Taliban, not Iraqis
nor Iranians nor North Koreans.
What is the US defending against? A nuclear attack against the US by Iraq? An Iranian invasion of America? A North Korean accord with South Korea after the US fought a war there to keep them separate?
Would pre-emptive strikes against these countries defend against terrorist attacks? Have terrorists represented the countries that they originated from, or have they been sponsored by organizations whose members and leadership have held grudges against others?
If they represent the countries of their origin, the US should, using similar logic, strike Saudi Arabia from whence the September 11th terrorists originated. America might also attack Japan again for the escapades of the Red Army Faction. While they're at it, why not destroy Montana for harboring Timothy McVeigh?
Would a pre-emptive strike against any of the "axis of evil" countries pre-empt acts of terrorism? On the
contrary, such action would inevitably kill and wound a multitude of innocent civilians and foster more terrorists sympathetic to the victims.
George W. Bush, Jr. and Donald Rumsfield claim to be Christians. However their policies and positions derive not from Christianity but from the modern version of Old Testament "an eye for an eye" vengeance. What's modern about the version practiced by Israel and infecting the thinking of the US? It's now "your eye before you can even consider harming mine."
|