A "Have to" War That Does Not "Have to" Be Done

By CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE
Staff Writer

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The hammer is cocked and the US has begun to squeeze the trigger on a war that the Bush administration contends we “have to” start, and that we “have to” it start now. The “have to” policy of the Bush administration presents serious questions.

Is the “have to” Bush policy politically motivated rhetoric - designed to enhance Republican Party rule, or, is the "have to" a real military necessity? Does “have to” mean  the first big  step on a goal of world dominance for democratic internationalism, or, as it should, does it mean imperative action necessary to protect America? Well it probably depends on what “have to” means. Numerous factors have caused many to align on both sides of the debate.

A major shift in US policy under the  Bush-Wolfowitz-Cheney-Rumsfeld coalition now permits war, any war - whether against an individual or a nation - upon the proposition that potential future threat to America is enough. Since 9/11 the US policy now aligns with hard line hawks and promotes "preventive war" with "preemptive nuclear strikes"  against all actual and potential "evil doers."

At one extreme, some have gone so far as to argue that if a country does not like the US - for example Iraq - that fact alone should make that  country a specific target for war.  These advocates for war do not believe that further evidence is necessary once it is established that we are not liked. Attitude or opinion alone is the glue that binds our enemies and is enough to meet their "have to" standard and justify war. Of course, their enemy is everywhere - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia,  North Korea, South Korea, France, Germany, China - and the fact that this enemy has a common dislike for the US is enough to classify them as suspects in a broad category called "terrorist." 

Under the Bush administration, "imminent threat" - which appears to be required by the US Constitution for Presidential exercise of war powers - is either irrelevant - because there is, in their opinion an "imminent threat" now,  or, the term is defined so loosely that it has no meaning. 

On the other hand, there are some that still believe that war should be for sound reason backed by proof. They archaically believe that there should be good reason for war, we should know who the real enemy is, and that action should be preceded by fully informed deliberation which provides evidence that supports the reason for the war consistent with who its against. For some reason, this radical group wants to know we have the right enemy for the right reason. This fringe group clings to notions of fairness, justice, due process, and principles for which many have died and for which we expect the world to respect us. Yet, it is argued that they  just do not grasp the real threat, the "have to" we face, and, in some cases that they are unpatriotic for their views. After all, our leader has declared a line that is easy to draw. You are either with us or against us.

Iraq appears to be just the first geographically targeted "regime." There are apparent plans to just go from country to country one after another with this war on terrorism. We are fighting a nightmare that we are creating. As this plan unfolds, we will create more enemies necessitating a greater and greater need to pre-emptively protect ourselves from evildoers for whom we may be creating the magnet for their rally.

Please

The Modern Tribune