Pax Gaea Human Rights World Post

Despite my five year war of words with the Bush administration over their lack of foresight and planning, I must confess that I am sorry that they have been so absolutely and completely wrong in their rosy predictions for the Afghan and Iraq Wars.

In absolute candor, I wish that I had been totally wrong in my foreswearings of doom about these two military ventures. While opposing the war, I had hoped that routing the Taliban and destroying Al Qaeda would be followed up with battalions of plumbers, electricians, teachers and tractors to rebuild that desperate nation. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was on the way to becoming one of the most modern countries in the region. The decade long war left the nation in ruins but put America high in the esteem of the Mujahadeen whom we had recruited to fight as our proxy against the Soviets. Both the foreign islamic fighters who flocked to Afghanistan to fight the "godless" communists and the Afghan resisters were provided with state-of-the-art American weapons and promises that, once the Soviets were gone, America would be there to make a new and great Afghanistan.

But no sooner than the miles of Soviet Tanks fled north, our advisors and promises went south leaving a vacuum of leadership rapidly filled by Osama Bin Laden's dollars and ideals. This provded the philosophical and material proving ground for Bin Laden's extremist ideals that inevitably resulted in the attacks on 9/11.

I had hoped that, once we neutralized the Taliban and routed Al Qaeda we would finally fulfill our promise to the Afghan people, bringing to them all the access and opportunities found in the modern world. And I sincerely believe we could have if an invasion of Iraq had not been in the planning stages long before 9/11 and long before Bush was the Republican nominee for President.

Since 1998 the Project for a New American Century, http://www.newamericancentury.org/ , had a stated purpose of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. In their statement of principles they offered much of their criticism to Conservatives, To quote,
"Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century".

Having been dismissed out of hand by President Clinton in their appeal and flush with freshly minted oil dollars, the so called "neo-conservatives" went candidate shopping and found their ideal in George Bush. Their influence was obvious as you view the list of PNAC members and signatories that made up the ranks of White House staffers and advisers...Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Bill Bennett, James Woolsey, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jeb Bush. These plus dozens of others who were motivated by a return to Reaganist approaches to foreign policy and militarism were determined to take down Saddam Hussein and to expand the U.S. footprint in the Middle East.

The initial success of the attack on Afghanistan and the overarching support of the American people and a cowed media made their dreams of invading Iraq such an easy case to make. To this day, I am firmly convinced that they knew that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States. What they did know for certain was that Osama Bin Laden's rhetoric, that the United States' military presence in Saudi Arabia was a a sacrilege in the shadow of Islam's most holy of places, was resounding within the region and that the Saudi's would soon evict the U.S. from their bases in an effort to appease their radical religious elements. That, combined with a vast untapped resource of crude oil was a strong pretext for invading within their frame of thinking but too abstract for compliance from the American people. So they lied... but, in their idealistic viewpoint, for a good cause.

Not only would the United States have a vast, exclusive resource to oil but, with a democratized Iraq, a grateful new location for their soon-to-be evicted military assets. In the months leading up to the Iraq war, I pored through thousands of pages of UNSCOM and IAEA data, perused press reports from dozens of domestic anf foreign news sources and, what kept coming back to me time and time again was that, according to every report, there was absolutely no evidence for weapons of mass destruction.

Because we were being led into a war on a politically motivated lie, I had to oppose this war. Ironically, if they had stated their case honestly, that our need for permanent, strategically located air bases and the desire to bring democracy to Iraq was their true goal, I would likely have been less resistant. What their lies and painfully obvious deception told me was that they sincerely believed that, without painting Iraq as a clear and present danger to America and without any link to terrorism and Al Qaeda and 9/11, they could never convince the American people that there was a noble, albeit naive, motive to their argument.

As a proud Marine, I can not put myself in the category of anti-war. I believe we have a constitutional requirement to "provide for the common defense" and believe we all have an obligation to take arms to defend our nation and our constitution. I also believe we have a moral responsibility to physically intercede in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and cross border assaults. But I also believe that as many days of diplomacy as are required to stave off armed conflict are days well spent and war and armed conflict must always, always be the absolute last resort.

I also believe that, as free people, we have an obligation to help any and all people who are struggling for their own freedom. This noble experiment that was put in play with our own revolution was firmly anchored in the self evident truth that all people are entitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". We provide those opportunities by being true to our principles and, first and foremost, by refusing to do business with people and nations who don't reflect our values. While that may dismissed by many as fluffy idealism and not akin to the realpolitick that dictates our business and diplomatic dealings, it is this bowing to realpolitick that makes us so hated, reviled, feared and despised by so many in this world.

Imagine if we used our military and economic power to draw a line in the sand and refuse to do business with nations who did not embrace our ideals. What if we told Saudi Arabia that we are not buying another drop of oil or China another electronic good until they implemented real democratic reform in their nation? What if, instead, we rewarded nations that were tangible democratic strides with real economic opportunity? What if we told every developing nation with more people and debt than jobs and infrastructure that speeding democratic reforms will lead to lucrative economic development that will enrich their nation and inspire people to stay in their home countries to make their own nation's great? What if, today, we all opted to not buy another product from any retailer that relies upon slavery and tyranny as a source of retail goods? Think it can't happen? Think about how it worked for South Africa. Think about how many jobs would return to America if we told Wal-Mart that we don't mind spending a few more dollars or cutting back on a few more lattes if that meant that products would start once again bearing the "Made In the USA" label or those labels from foreign countries bore "Fair Trade" or "Free Made".

In the days before huge welfare and entitlement programs, charitable endeavors were funded greatly by the very rich under the principle of noblesse oblige. Theere was an understanding that the wealthy had a moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate. Likewise, I feel that free people are morally required to a notion I call libérer oblige, an obligation to put their power and resources to work for the liberation of oppressed people.

Were America to take the moral lead that, as a nation we not only condemn, but refuse to do business with nations that tyranically and despotically rule their people but likewise, refuse to business with nations who do business with tyrants and we put our vast media resources behind communicating that message to the world, American would touch off a firestorm of liberation movements, some top down and many bottom up. By making this standard our realpolitick, the rest of the developed world would be forced to adopt our principles and practices in order to maintain their business relationships with us and to likewise protect their images abroad. Were America to truly be the moral standard for the world, to lead by example, the rest of the world would have absolutely no choice but to follow our lead... just like they did with South Africa.

Libérer oblige is one of the cornerstones of the Pax Gaea philosophy. While not endorsing any specific religious viewpoint, Pax Gaea does embrace the spiritual intent of all the great religious leaders of human history and the common theme that resounds in all of their messages... that all are entitled to be free and that we all are obliged to struggle on behalf of the libertation and freedom of our fellow man.

posted by Dave Carroll @ 7/13/2006 02:28:00 AM