The real costs of war

Our corporate owned media does little to show us the real costs of American military folly in Iraq. This extends to a near black-out of any images of those devastated by war, including American servicemen (and women). In a new book, "Never Coming Home," Andrew Lichtenstein has compiled images which convey the true costs of war. They do not show the physical damage inflicted, but the longer term, devastating emotional consequences to family and loved ones. You can view the short photo essay here.

Crude hosts

The elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was invited to speak and engage in a public forum at Columbia University yesterday. Considering the rudeness and out-right hostility he faced, he seemed to handle himself with commendable aplomb. The President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, provided one of the more boorish displays from an American academician in recent memory. Bollinger, seemingly bent on providing Fox News with it's course of raw meat for the day, acted the part of the "ugly American" to a tee. He came off as nasty, ill-informed, and downright arrogant. Perfect for Fox in fact.

While I do not agree with much of what Ahmadinejad stands for, and he certainly has made a number of regrettable and ill-informed statements, he has not bombed and invaded any countries under dubious circumstances (like some other president I know), and he has not threatened the United States in any serious way. Whether we like to admit it or not, he was legitimately elected in Iran, and he actually wields considerably less power in Iran than George W. Bush has appropriated for himself in this country. Why not let him speak, judge him on his statements, and perhaps try to engage and educate him to a more enlightened point of view? That's the truly American response that I was taught.

Moreover, why bar Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero, in lower Manhattan, if he had expressed a wish to do so? There is not a shred of evidence linking Iran to the 9/11 attacks, recall that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. Indeed, Iranians expressed deep sympathy with Americans after the attacks, as did much of the world. Sympathies which the Bush administration has done much to undue since then. If the attempt is to further try and demonize Iran as somehow responsible for Bush's debacle in Iraq, then we must not forget that Iraq too had nothing to do with 9/11. How is it that we became such crude hosts?

The Betrayal

George W. Bush likes to fancy himself a friend of the military. Our Vietnam-evading, chicken-hawk president talks a good game, but if you examine the record it isn't very pretty, and indeed a reasonable argument can be made that Bush is about the worst friend the military could have. Since when has committing US forces under false pretenses to an illegal war and occupation been consistent with "supporting the troops?"

Further, let's consider the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. A key component of the "rationale" for war was the new security policy of "preemption" promulgated by the Bush administration. Put simply, it basically asserts the right of the United States to wage war in "self defense" against any perceived threat, including future threats which have not really fully materialized, but are merely incipient threats, in the view of the president. It also asserts this as a unilateral right, that is, it essentially argues that the United States will be bound not be international legal and treaty obligations, but by it's own determination of what constitutes a threat. In this sense it deals a severe blow to the notion of multi-lateralism, and greatly weakens the United Nations in its efforts to secure peaceful solutions to conflicts. It also represented a radical, 180-degree shift from previous US security postures, which largely promoted the notions of multi-lateralism and collective security within the context of international law.

Now, approximately 300,000 Americans lost their lives in the fight against fascism in World War II. An important legacy directly resulting from this American (and Allied) sacrifice was the establishment of an international organization (the Unite Nations), and a framework for international law, both of which essentially grew out of the Nuremberg war-crimes tribunals. Indeed, the notion that the affairs of States should be bound by a legal framework, and that leaders could and would be held accountable for their actions, held the great promise of finally ending the scourge of war, or, if not ending it, then at least seriously constraining it. The legal framework is codified in the Nuremberg Principles. A key component of the principles is the definition of crimes against peace;

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

The chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, had this to say about wars of aggression, "To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Moreover, the United Nations Charter, which has the force of international law, states in article 2 that; All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. The UN charter, and other international legal agreements, also establish that the only legal justification for the use of force is self defense against attack. In this context self defense is meant to be defense against an imminent threat of attack against a nations territory. It does not, however, contemplate the preemptive use of force to defend from "perceived" threats.

The Bush doctrine of preemptive war seriously undermines the entire framework for international law that several hundred thousand American servicemen gave their lives to help bring into existence. I would call that a serious betrayal of the legacy of those Americans who served in World War II. Moreover, the claim of the right to now commit US troops to preemptive actions outside of the legal framework of international law is yet another betrayal, but now of those presently in uniform. I wouldn't call these the actions of a friend.