PERMANENT BASES POINT TOWARD PERMANENT WAR: IS THE NEOCON NIGHTMARE WINDING DOWN, OR JUST GETTING STARTED? :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occup

PERMANENT BASES POINT TOWARD PERMANENT WAR: IS THE NEOCON NIGHTMARE WINDING DOWN, OR JUST GETTING STARTED? :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - it

PERMANENT BASES POINT TOWARD PERMANENT WAR: IS THE NEOCON NIGHTMARE WINDING DOWN, OR JUST GETTING STARTED?
Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., OrbStandard

February 16, 2006

"To initiate a war of aggression is, therefore, not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, relating to "Count Two, the Crime of Aggression," as brought against Herman Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and 14 other defendants.

In Mr. Bush's "State 0f The Union" address, he claimed that "US forces will be drawn down as Iraqi forces stand up." [1] However, this claim is flatly contradicted by the Pentagon's ongoing multibillion-dollar expenditures for the construction of 106 permanent bases - including six hi-tech "super-bases" - inside Iraq. [2]

Is there a reason why the USA's mainstream media won't report on those 106 bases, and why Congress won't debate the Pentagon's base-construction projects? The simplest answer is that the government-media complex has declared this subject taboo because it would reveal the USA's intention to militarily occupy Iraq for decades. [3]

Furthermore, Mr. Bush's quagmire in Iraq already has the USA hemorrhaging red ink. According to a recent study by the American Economic Association, the Bush administration's pre-war estimate of a $60 billion price-tag for the Iraq War was wildly unrealistic. The study concluded that the final bill for the Iraq War will actually be somewhere between ONE AND TWO TRILLION DOLLARS, depending on how much longer our troops stay. [4] And that staggering figure doesn't take into account its human costs in bloodshed and suffering. [5]

Realistically, Mr. Bush's "draw-down" rhetoric is merely a propaganda ploy in anticipation of the 2006 mid-term election, and the withdrawal won't be implemented. In all likelihood, those hi-tech "super-bases" will serve another purpose, which is to launch and monitor his next illegal war of aggression against Iraq's oil-rich neighbor, IRAN. [6] Of course, the Bush administration will reassure us, during its pre-war propaganda campaign, that their petro-state invasion is absolutely necessary, and isn't merely another "blood-for-oil" scenario through which their wealthy war-profiteering cronies will further enrich themselves at our expense (and some naive Americans will actually believe them).

So where is this nation's foreign policy headed? In the short run, Mr. Bush is already attempting to expand his "wartime commander-in-chief powers" to despotic dimensions, so he can - among other things - autonomously order the commencement of a "might-makes-right" aggressive war against Iran, thus giving Republicans yet another "national security" cudgel to swing during the upcoming mid-term election. [7]

Additionally, it's foreseeable that Mr. Bush's dictatorial assumption of extra-constitutional powers will elicit a strong negative reaction domestically, and that he'll use these protests as his excuse to declare martial law at home. In the long run, it's foreseeable that his cynical militarization of US foreign policy will bankrupt this nation - morally, legally, politically and economically. [8]

BEFORE these things happen, we should be asking ourselves: "Does might make right?" According to the principles of Just War Theory and international law, the answer is a resounding "NO!" [9] BEFORE these things happen, we should have the moral courage to pro-actively pursue every legitimate preventive measure that is available to us in a democracy. BEFORE these things happen, we should try the constitutionally-prescribed remedy of impeachment and - if it becomes necessary - collective acts of nonviolent civil disobedience on a massive scale everywhere. [10]

Finally, every citizen should know that the plain language of the US Constitution empowers Congress to impeach any president who commits a war crime in violation of the USA's treaty obligations under international law. Here's how:

(a) in Article VI, Paragraph 2, of the US Constitution, the "Supremacy Clause" declares that Senate-ratified treaties are "the supreme law of the land"; and
(b) Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the US Constitution, Congress is empowered to "punish...offenses against the law of nations." In short, Congress may punish the president for committing war crimes in violation of Senate-ratified treaties and conventions. Therefore, Congress may impeach, convict, and remove Mr. Bush from office for committing the supreme crime when he ordered the commencement of an aggressive war against Iraq. [11]