How the West depends on the U.S. for Defense
After World War II superpower status was assigned to the United States and the Soviet Union. After defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, preventing armed conflict and a nuclear holocaust saving western civilization from Communism, the U.S. has become the lone superpower. The Europeans haven’t built up military power since WWII, and during the Cold War depended upon the N.A.T.O. alliance with the U.S. to prevent Communist expansion into Western Europe. The British Royal Navy no longer protects international trade routes, the U.S. Navy does. Even in the east, but still part of western civilization, the countries Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan rely on the United States for defense. The U.S., as the sole superpower, must fight the War on Terror in the Middle East to defend western civilization from Islamo-fascist terrorists and tyrants and adopt a more muscular foreign policy to face new threats.
On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists from the Middle East using hijacked American airplanes to crash into various targets of American power marking the beginning of the War on Terror. “We must take the battle to the enemy…in the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action,” President Bush said in a speech to West Point graduates in June 2002. That world we have entered is one of global terrorism with cells in 60 countries or more that seek various weapons including chemical, biological, and nuclear (weapons of mass destruction, WMD) to carry out more attacks on the U.S. and her allies. The path of action began with the War in Afghanistan against the Taliban regime that hosted Al Qaeda’s terrorist training centers. Next President Bush would implement a new policy of preemption with the War in Iraq on March 19, 2003 with the goal of regime change of the most powerful evil dictator in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein. By starting a war in the Middle East the United States has opened up a central front in the War on Terror taking the battle to the enemy.
Some oppose this use of military force preemptively not for immediate self defense. “This new approach repudiates the core idea of the United Nations Charter (reinforced by decisions of the World Court in The Hague), which prohibits any use of international force that is not undertaken in self-defense…pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council,”(Falk 2002). It’s true that the council did not vote to authorize force against Iraq and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the War in Iraq illegal. The U.N. also declared in resolution 1441 that noncompliance with U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq would result in the use of force. The U.N. Security Council chose not to enforce resolution 1441 when the time came, so instead the United States lead a coalition of willing nations in Operation Iraqi Freedom to liberate Iraq. What use is deterrence if force is never used? Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Libya negotiated and gave up their secret WMD programs.
The U.S. cannot relinquish sovereignty to the U.N, international agreements, or intergalactic federation forces should they exist. The international community has no stake in U.S. interests, nations with seats on the U.N. Security Council did not suffer attacks on September 11th, many U.N. member nations are dictatorships, and the U.N. Oil for Food scandal revealed vast corruption in the organization that went so far as to implicate the son of the U.N. Secretary General. The United Nations was created after WWII with the utopian intent of ending war between nations by creating a forum for world powers to settle disputes through negotiation and diplomacy instead of on the battlefield. The U.N. in this regard is a complete failure. U.N. Peacekeepers were powerless to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia. Saddam Hussein was saved by the U.N. in the 1991 Gulf War that limited coalition forces to expelling Hussein’s army from Kuwait instead of regime change in Baghdad. That caused the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis that rose up to depose Hussein and were not supported by coalition forces.
Because of the lack of U.N. support some accused the U.S. of acting “unilaterally” in Iraq. Unilateralism is the tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies. Multilateralism and unilateralism are neither good nor bad. The Nazi invasion force of Russia was one of the largest multilateral coalitions ever assembled while the Russians unilaterally defended themselves, this doesn’t mean that the Nazi’s were morally justified to invade Russia because they had a larger coalition and the Russians wrong to defend themselves unilaterally. Regardless, the U.S. didn’t unilaterally go to war in Iraq; the coalition forces included the British, S. Korean, Australian, and many other nations supported the U.S. like the Japanese and former soviet bloc eastern European nations.
Richard Falk rightly understands that President Bush’s preemption policy addresses the fact that “axis of evil” (states like Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, and their terrorist allies) acquisition of weapons of mass destruction acts as a deterrent capability against the United States. That’s why we could invade Iraq and not N. Korea, members of the “axis”; N. Korea has the bomb and holds S. Korea hostage with it, while Saddam’s regime was still developing WMD and could not yet hold his neighbor’s hostage and preserve his tyranny indefinitely. He wrongly describes preemption policy as a hidden sinister motive in Washington “…global dominance, a project to transform the world order… in the direction of…global empire administered from Washington.” Iraq is not under U.S. dominance; Iraq has a population of about 30 million people while the U.S. had at most about 300,000 troops in Iraq at the height of the invasion, if a popular movement resisted the U.S. in Iraq we would lose quickly and badly. Coalition forces rely on popular support in Iraq to achieve victory, in the form of a peaceful democratically elected Iraqi government that will fight Islamo-fascist terror and tyranny.
Is the goal of the U.S. preemptive war in Iraq really about extending American empire to a region rich in oil? No. If the U.S. wanted oil drilling in Alaska or off shore would be easier to accomplish, or in a real imperialistic move the U.S. could declare Kuwait the 51st state of the union, rich in oil, that’s why Saddam annexed Kuwait himself, and it would be much easier than trying to get our clutches on Saddam’s stolen Iraqi oil reserves since Kuwait is already dominated by a U.S. military presence.
It must be difficult to label deposing a Stalinist tyrant, Hussein, and holding democratic elections for a new government as imperialism. So instead to describe America’s defense of the western civilization as imperialism the term ‘hegemony’ is used, e.g. “…confront the fact of America’s military strength and its worldwide political, cultural, and economic hegemony,”* (WA 725). Hegemony, the predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others, is an accurate description of the U.S. but is not the same as imperialism, the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The accusations of hegemony, unilateralism, and illegality are used to undermine the United State’s moral authority to defend western civilization. It seems like an unchallengeable idea for the U.S. to have moral authority to defend the west, how can defense be wrong? “... [T]he war on terror…will require firm moral purpose… Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong…Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong…We are in a conflict of good and evil, and America will call evil by its name,” (Bush 2002). Some claim this is moral absolutism that gives the U.S. “… the moral high ground, which exempts America from self-criticism…there can be no reasonable restraint,” and that, “We may lament fundamentalism in the Islamic world…, but what about our own,” (Falk 2002). Ah yes, post-modern relativism, we are no better than our terrorist enemies. Not so. We have tons of restraint, we could abandon S. Korea, and invade N. Korea to stop WMD proliferation or invade Iran at a cost of blood and treasure that would be enormous, but we don’t.
And the U.S. hasn’t had any self-criticism? Self-criticism of the government is part of our society; the U.S. media criticizes our government constantly, Falk’s article in Nation magazine is a from of self-criticism of U.S. policy in the U.S. media, the opposition party has criticized and spoken out against U.S. policy frequently in both houses of the U.S. congress, and President Bush in 2004 was up for re-election and had to defend his policy against a candidate that offered a different policy to our citizens.
Western Civilization isn’t going to save itself, lazy Europeans and other weak nations have outsourced defense to the U.S. diminishing their own forces to near insignificance since the Cold War. The U.S., as the sole superpower, must fight the War on Terror in the Middle East to defend western civilization from Islamo-fascist terrorists and tyrants and adopt a more muscular foreign policy to face new threats, and it is the duty of her people to stay the course. This war will not be over soon, and our resolve will be tested. We are not perfect and their will be failures and mistakes along the way, but as long as we don’t give up we can’t lose. Our strength isn’t our ability to destroy it’s our ability to create. The will of free people is most powerful force in the world.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address
Bush, George W. President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point June 1, 2002
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings Sixth edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2004.
Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., Johnson, June. “The United States as Superpower”
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings Sixth edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2004.
Falk, Richard “The New Bush Doctrine” Nation July 15, 2002
On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists from the Middle East using hijacked American airplanes to crash into various targets of American power marking the beginning of the War on Terror. “We must take the battle to the enemy…in the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action,” President Bush said in a speech to West Point graduates in June 2002. That world we have entered is one of global terrorism with cells in 60 countries or more that seek various weapons including chemical, biological, and nuclear (weapons of mass destruction, WMD) to carry out more attacks on the U.S. and her allies. The path of action began with the War in Afghanistan against the Taliban regime that hosted Al Qaeda’s terrorist training centers. Next President Bush would implement a new policy of preemption with the War in Iraq on March 19, 2003 with the goal of regime change of the most powerful evil dictator in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein. By starting a war in the Middle East the United States has opened up a central front in the War on Terror taking the battle to the enemy.
Some oppose this use of military force preemptively not for immediate self defense. “This new approach repudiates the core idea of the United Nations Charter (reinforced by decisions of the World Court in The Hague), which prohibits any use of international force that is not undertaken in self-defense…pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council,”(Falk 2002). It’s true that the council did not vote to authorize force against Iraq and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the War in Iraq illegal. The U.N. also declared in resolution 1441 that noncompliance with U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq would result in the use of force. The U.N. Security Council chose not to enforce resolution 1441 when the time came, so instead the United States lead a coalition of willing nations in Operation Iraqi Freedom to liberate Iraq. What use is deterrence if force is never used? Immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Libya negotiated and gave up their secret WMD programs.
The U.S. cannot relinquish sovereignty to the U.N, international agreements, or intergalactic federation forces should they exist. The international community has no stake in U.S. interests, nations with seats on the U.N. Security Council did not suffer attacks on September 11th, many U.N. member nations are dictatorships, and the U.N. Oil for Food scandal revealed vast corruption in the organization that went so far as to implicate the son of the U.N. Secretary General. The United Nations was created after WWII with the utopian intent of ending war between nations by creating a forum for world powers to settle disputes through negotiation and diplomacy instead of on the battlefield. The U.N. in this regard is a complete failure. U.N. Peacekeepers were powerless to prevent the slaughter of thousands of innocent people in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia. Saddam Hussein was saved by the U.N. in the 1991 Gulf War that limited coalition forces to expelling Hussein’s army from Kuwait instead of regime change in Baghdad. That caused the slaughter of thousands of Iraqis that rose up to depose Hussein and were not supported by coalition forces.
Because of the lack of U.N. support some accused the U.S. of acting “unilaterally” in Iraq. Unilateralism is the tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies. Multilateralism and unilateralism are neither good nor bad. The Nazi invasion force of Russia was one of the largest multilateral coalitions ever assembled while the Russians unilaterally defended themselves, this doesn’t mean that the Nazi’s were morally justified to invade Russia because they had a larger coalition and the Russians wrong to defend themselves unilaterally. Regardless, the U.S. didn’t unilaterally go to war in Iraq; the coalition forces included the British, S. Korean, Australian, and many other nations supported the U.S. like the Japanese and former soviet bloc eastern European nations.
Richard Falk rightly understands that President Bush’s preemption policy addresses the fact that “axis of evil” (states like Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, and their terrorist allies) acquisition of weapons of mass destruction acts as a deterrent capability against the United States. That’s why we could invade Iraq and not N. Korea, members of the “axis”; N. Korea has the bomb and holds S. Korea hostage with it, while Saddam’s regime was still developing WMD and could not yet hold his neighbor’s hostage and preserve his tyranny indefinitely. He wrongly describes preemption policy as a hidden sinister motive in Washington “…global dominance, a project to transform the world order… in the direction of…global empire administered from Washington.” Iraq is not under U.S. dominance; Iraq has a population of about 30 million people while the U.S. had at most about 300,000 troops in Iraq at the height of the invasion, if a popular movement resisted the U.S. in Iraq we would lose quickly and badly. Coalition forces rely on popular support in Iraq to achieve victory, in the form of a peaceful democratically elected Iraqi government that will fight Islamo-fascist terror and tyranny.
Is the goal of the U.S. preemptive war in Iraq really about extending American empire to a region rich in oil? No. If the U.S. wanted oil drilling in Alaska or off shore would be easier to accomplish, or in a real imperialistic move the U.S. could declare Kuwait the 51st state of the union, rich in oil, that’s why Saddam annexed Kuwait himself, and it would be much easier than trying to get our clutches on Saddam’s stolen Iraqi oil reserves since Kuwait is already dominated by a U.S. military presence.
It must be difficult to label deposing a Stalinist tyrant, Hussein, and holding democratic elections for a new government as imperialism. So instead to describe America’s defense of the western civilization as imperialism the term ‘hegemony’ is used, e.g. “…confront the fact of America’s military strength and its worldwide political, cultural, and economic hegemony,”* (WA 725). Hegemony, the predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others, is an accurate description of the U.S. but is not the same as imperialism, the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.
The accusations of hegemony, unilateralism, and illegality are used to undermine the United State’s moral authority to defend western civilization. It seems like an unchallengeable idea for the U.S. to have moral authority to defend the west, how can defense be wrong? “... [T]he war on terror…will require firm moral purpose… Targeting innocent civilians for murder is always and everywhere wrong…Brutality against women is always and everywhere wrong…We are in a conflict of good and evil, and America will call evil by its name,” (Bush 2002). Some claim this is moral absolutism that gives the U.S. “… the moral high ground, which exempts America from self-criticism…there can be no reasonable restraint,” and that, “We may lament fundamentalism in the Islamic world…, but what about our own,” (Falk 2002). Ah yes, post-modern relativism, we are no better than our terrorist enemies. Not so. We have tons of restraint, we could abandon S. Korea, and invade N. Korea to stop WMD proliferation or invade Iran at a cost of blood and treasure that would be enormous, but we don’t.
And the U.S. hasn’t had any self-criticism? Self-criticism of the government is part of our society; the U.S. media criticizes our government constantly, Falk’s article in Nation magazine is a from of self-criticism of U.S. policy in the U.S. media, the opposition party has criticized and spoken out against U.S. policy frequently in both houses of the U.S. congress, and President Bush in 2004 was up for re-election and had to defend his policy against a candidate that offered a different policy to our citizens.
Western Civilization isn’t going to save itself, lazy Europeans and other weak nations have outsourced defense to the U.S. diminishing their own forces to near insignificance since the Cold War. The U.S., as the sole superpower, must fight the War on Terror in the Middle East to defend western civilization from Islamo-fascist terrorists and tyrants and adopt a more muscular foreign policy to face new threats, and it is the duty of her people to stay the course. This war will not be over soon, and our resolve will be tested. We are not perfect and their will be failures and mistakes along the way, but as long as we don’t give up we can’t lose. Our strength isn’t our ability to destroy it’s our ability to create. The will of free people is most powerful force in the world.
Works Cited
Bush, George W. President Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address
Bush, George W. President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point June 1, 2002
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings Sixth edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2004.
Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., Johnson, June. “The United States as Superpower”
Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings Sixth edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2004.
Falk, Richard “The New Bush Doctrine” Nation July 15, 2002
posted by Camilo at 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home