Saturday, July 22, 2006

A New Front: Not a New War

The bombing and upcoming invasion of Lebanon is not a new war. It is a third and massive new front on an ongoing gambit aimed at subduing the whole of the Middle East. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Lebanon are flash points in American designs on ideally positioning themselves in the middle of the global chessboard. Control of this area is important at a time when Asian thirst for oil is growing.

The USA is installing, as Chomsky puts it, "a unipolar world" where the USA aims to subdue all. Nothing will be able to challenge its absolute power. In such a world, the USA takes on the role of the UN. There is no need for a proper United Nations because the USA is to be the Imperial World Ruler. With the role of world dictator secure, it will deal with opposition with ruthless brutality and efficiency. This has started. The UN has been deemed irrelevant by the New World Order. Kofi Annan is a lost voice in the wilderness while the real politics of American international domination dictate real politics. As for ruthless brutality, the USA has been busy redefining what is acceptable in terms of state ruthlessness over the past several years. At this point, we wouldn't be surprised at anything except perhaps for the use of nuclear weapons.

The Middle East is to be subject to the rule of the Chalabis, the Allawis, and future quislings. The ongoing authoritarian rulers, the kings and tyrants in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others are secured by American support. Threats to them are designated as terrorist. The Shah of Iran was planted and secured by American oil interests. The people of Iran have overthrown through a popular uprising. America is hell bent on not only preventing a recurrence, they aim to secure, subdue and pacify the whole region. The problem for them is, the more they try, the more elusive the goal becomes.

It is a gambit and a gambit that is doomed to fail. Just as they have underestimated the resolve and determination of Iraqis, they are in for lesson they will never forget in Lebanon. Pity the people that live there on both sides of the borders; the Lebanese and the Israelis. It is they that will pay the price.


The war hawks have aimed at the weakest targets they can find. Contrary to expectations, the America/Israeli war machine's next target was the relatively impotent Lebanon as opposed to Syria or Iran. But we might have guessed and would have if we respected the law of American cowardice properly.

Lebanon has been a pro-Western nation for the most part. That it also houses many Palestinians and Islamic populations has been an important factor - alongside that military weakness. The fact that it is/was a democratic nation has also been an unpalatable and intolerable condition. They need a King, a Shah, or a tyrant of any stripe. For these reasons, Lebanon had to be subdued and completely humiliated. It will be surprising if the Americans back away prior to the installation of a dictatorship or a bloody mess that will demand they run. Contrary to what they spin, democracy is the last thing the Americans want or will tolerate.

Lebanon is not only guilty of harbouring non-compliant Muslims. It is also guilty of not being hawkish enough against it's own Islamic population as well as neighbouring Muslim populations. Lebanon is also guilty of having Hezbollah elected and holding over 30 seats within it's government, including members of cabinet. The same Hezbollah that ran the American Marines as well as Israel out of Lebanon. The Americans naturally demanded that the organization disarm.

Obviously, weak nations are under threat of war by the Imperial US of A. Lebanon has no military to speak of. They cannot manage Israel, which is armed to the teeth by the USA. This condition begs all nations to heavily arm themselves as a deterrent. This is another desirable condition in the world of imperial capitalism. Those that are marching around the world slaughtering people also happen to be the same folks that profit from weapons sales.

Various Israeli talking heads suggested recently, a nation has a right and responsibility to protect it's people. By admitting this, they absolve Hezbollah. They also absolve pretty much all other so-called terrorist organizations including the resistance in Iraq, the resistance in Afghanistan, Hamas and so on. They are inadvertently excusing hostile and aggressive actions against their own people. They are demanding it.

When a society is invaded and the people slaughtered and tortured by a foreign war machine, you might expect a response. What choices do the people and particularly the Islamic people of the Middle East, and at the moment, Lebanon face? Can we blame Hamas? Can we blame Hezbollah and the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can we say with a clear conscience that these people do not have a right to defend themselves. The answer is clear and the answer is 'NO'. Hezbollah is a result of American and Israeli aims at trying to destroy Lebanon. This invasion confirms, with no shadow of doubt in the minds of Muslim people, the necessity of Hezbollah.

All War All the Time

Condoleeza Rice recently said that a cease fire would be a false promise. In other words, the is promoting the doctrine of 'war is peace'. She is talking about pre-emptive war. They have crossed the line and lowered the standards for future war rationalizations. The Nuremberg Tribunals had defined what is most unacceptable. To paraphrase; 'The act of initiating war by invading another country is the supreme war crime containing within it all other war crimes'. To quote Chomsky, "Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime condemned at Nuremberg". Collectively, we cannot afford the Americans and the Israelis define what is acceptable. We cannot afford a future of barbarism.

Although this is part of a grand American global domination war, the micro situation between Lebanon and Israel is ostensibly different than the situation between Iraq and America. As a result, the rationalization is different. What is similar between Israel's rationalations and America's is the notion of preemptive war. Within that context (the aim to dominate the world), we may witness more war fronts opening to prevent future terrorist attacks. Ironically, this is precisely what is needed to not only to make resistance movements desirable, but necessary.

The most dangerous aspect of accepting pre-emptive war, especially in this climate, is that is opens the planet for continual war.

The potential rationalizations in the future are endless and few could be as flimsy as what we've seen thus far. This war will not stop until the Americans feel too much pain to continue. There is no way they are going to subdue the Muslim populations. If they actually hold that assumption, then they are assuming that other societies are as weak of character as they themselves are. Whether by design or through stupidity, they are creating conditions for more war; for all war all the time. At the moment it isn't painful for America. In the future it will be. As it is, this state of endlesswar may be supported by much of the American population. This will remain the case until a critical mass in that country realize that they have no business in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon. And when a critical mass of Americans die for profit, and when average Joe American realizes this, America will retreat. They will have no fighters.

It is absolutely tragic and sad that this condition exists.

But 'all war all the time' will end. The question of when is up to the people of America.

No comments: