What constitutes a "war"?

In the last half of the twentieth century, the word "war" has taken on a strange transformation.

Various government initiatives have incorrectly been called "wars" as a form of program marketing. The War on Drugs. The War on Illiteracy. The War on Poverty.

Conversely, many Presidents in that time have undertaken military conflicts resulting in the suffering and death of our soldiers and the citizens of foreign countries. These military engagements have been called "limited actions", "policing actions", and "intervention with U.S. military advisors", and most recently with the Iraq invasion, "a pre-emptive attack to remove weapons of mass destruction".

Ladies and Gentlemen of the U.S. government, the flagrant use of these euphemisms for war does not absolve you from your responsibilities to the Constitution. The Bush Administration, with the tacit cooperation of the 107th and 108th Congresses, has sought this war with Iraq in complete disregard for our Constitution, international law and binding treaties we have signed.

The twentieth century saw an overall, every-increasing usurpation of war powers by the Executive branch over successive U.S. administrations. The 1973 War Powers Act was passed in an attempt to stem this usurpation. 30 years later, on March 17th, 2003 we saw the complete escalation and exercise of Executive power to declare war without an explicit Congressional declaration.

The 1973 War Powers Act allowed for greater responsiveness to immediate threats by allowing the President to commit U.S. troops for sixty days without Congressional approval. This war with Iraq, with its extended global public debate hardly constitutes a response to an "immediate threat." There was no good case to include the reference to the President's priviledge under the War Powers Act in the Joint Congressional Resolution on Iraq.

So while the Presidents of the past 50 years may have hidden behind euphemisms for war, let us plainly call this unprovoked attack, subsequent invasion, and war against Iraq just that, a war. There is no hiding its true and terrible face. It is war and I indict President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and the cabinet of civil officers for seeking, planning, declaring and making this illegal war against Iraq.

Based on the substantial placement and influence of PNAC members in the Bush Administration, the failure of the Bush administration to abide by the language and intent of U.N. S.C.R. 1441 is hardly surprising. Given President Bush's own unmistakeable, coarse imperative cited in the Time magazine article mentioned above, I believe that the Bush administration's charges of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction served as a pretext to allow the Bush administration to seek the U.S. invasion to oust Hussein and thus to serve its own agenda. Further, George W. Bush stated his "impatience" regarding weapons inspections on many occasions in contradiction to the U.N. reports and other public statements praising Iraqi cooperation from Hans Blix, U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector. This flimsy and unsubstantiated reasoning suggests that the Bush Administration did not want to see the success of the weapons inspections or accept that the possibility that a U.N.-lead invasion to achieve "regime change" in Iraq might not be desired or approved by the U.N. Security Council.

At a press conference in October 2002, White House spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, stated that the Bush Administration seeks "regime change". At that same press conference, Ari went on to advocate the use of a "bullet" to effect Iraqi regime change. (12)

This careless and very public advocating of assassination of heads of state, no matter how tyrannical and despicable they may be, only serves to escalate and fundamentally alter the operational rules of international conflict and places the officials of our own government in greater jeopardy in future conflicts.

Abiding by international law and the Geneva Convention protects the armed forces and officials of our own country by establishing international expectations for behavior on both sides of a conflict.

Other governments will naturally seek an equilibrium of power that requires them to emulate and pursue a similar military doctrine of pre-emptive strikes when the U.S. establishes the expectation for that behavior by its actions.

Following the EXACT same logic of the "Bush Doctrine", Pakistan is now allowed to strike at India to avoid possible future Indian aggression. Or vice versa. This is a path to a global conflagration, a third world war. I sincerely hope with all my heart that I am wrong about the destination of this terrible path that our nation has begun to march down. I earnestly hope that we can reverse this doctrine of pre-emption before it is too late.

With the pre-emptive attack on Iraq, this great nation became a country that uses force and violence to get its way and ignores international law at its own peril. It is not behaving in a manner becoming to a democratic republic that respects the rule of law and a nation that seeks peace and the minimum required use of force to achieve its goals.

Human history records that empires and nations seeking to build empires are the instigators of non-defensive, aggressive military action against other sovereign nations.

The policies espoused in "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," September 2002, clearly indicate the Bush Administration's desire for the establishment of an unparalleled American global military presence and capability. President Bush declares a new global Manifest Destiny for the U.S., saying that "the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe." (13)

With his references to expanded military capability and ephemistic terms for the expansion of American influence, I believe that this National Security Strategy document clearly establishes the desire of the Bush Administration to establish, expand and maintain a global American empire. Within the pages of the NSS President Bush advocates the use of an expanded reach and capability of American military power to maintain the "benefits of freedom" for nations and people outside of the borders of our country, irrespective of the desires of those other nations and peoples for their own self-determination outside of American influence.

If there is any doubt about the destiny of imperialist nations that use violence and military conquest to control the natural resources of other peoples and their lands, one need only look at the history of empires. The empires of Hitler's Third Reich, Alexander, Napoleon, the Mongols, the Romans, the British, the Spanish, the French, and many more, all sought to exert control over natural resources at the expense of other people's suffering. Those vast empires are all gone, washed away to live in the memory of history, or withdrawn back inside their national borders.

In both the domestic and international realms, the Bush Administration has consistently chosen a path of instilling fear with its might rather than seeking justice under the law. Impeachment of the President, Vice President and other civil officers will be only a first step in regaining international respect.

The task of regaining the respect of the international community may prove the most difficult task of all. We MUST seek a path of signing and ratifying international treaties that demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law including the International Criminal Court (ICC). This would demonstrate the American commitment to international justice and the rule of law.

The United States will need to demonstrate a renewed commitment to the practice of these higher principles of human endeavor in order to repair the damage done to its relations with allies and to demonstrate that it is no longer a threat to the pursuit of world peace.

In keeping with international law, the U.N. Charter, and the morality espoused by every major world religion, I do not advocate the use of violent conflict in any context other than as a last resort in self-defense. I hold that the federal government of the United States' unprovoked, "preemptive" attack and invasion of Iraq is wrong, legally, morally and tactically.

The loss of life in Iraq caused by our government's actions is entirely irreversible.

I believe, however, that the loss of our citizens' rights and erosion of the democratic rule of law in this country IS reversible, but it will require a great effort to reclaim it.