More Evidence of Zionist Influence over US Policy

On Being Led By the Nose:
The Unchallenged Power of the Israel Lobby

By JAMES ABOUREZK
Counterpunch
July 12, 2010

I picked up a copy of a memoir written by the long-gone CIA Director, George Tenet. On the first page of the book's preface, Mr. Tenet described what it was like on the day after the World Trade Towers had exploded as a result of the terrorists' actions on 9-11-01.

I quote Mr. Tenet here:

“All this weighed heavy on my mind as I walked beneath the awning that leads to the West Wing and saw Richard Perle exiting the building just as I was about to enter. Perle is one of the godfathers of the neoconservative movement and, at the time, was head of the Defense Policy Board, an independent advisory group attached to the Secretary of Defense. Ours was little more than a passing acquaintance. As the doors closed behind him, we made eye contact and nodded. I had just reached the door myself when Perle turned to me and said, 'Iraq has to pay a price for what happened yesterday. 'They bear responsibility.' (Italics added).

“I was stunned but said nothing. Eighteen hours earlier, I had scanned passenger manifests for the four hijacked airplanes that showed beyond a doubt that al-Qa'ida was behind the attacks. Over the months and years to follow, we would carefully examine the potential of a collaborative role for state sponsors. The intelligence then and now, however, showed no evidence of Iraqi complicity."

The idea that George W. Bush's neocon advisers--Perle included--convinced him that the U.S. should invade Iraq received some attention after the Iraqi war started. But to my knowledge, no one, either in politics or the media, pressed the case too hard, lest they discover that those who wanted to invade Iraq had, not America's interest, but Israel's interest in mind.

There was never a threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein. He was a threat to his own people, but not to our country, a fact which became much more clear as the war went on. But Bush's critics stopped short of implicating Israel's interests as a reason for invading Iraq. A great many people believe, myself included, that Israel wanted Saddam out of the way because, while he was not really a military threat to Israel, he was a political threat. He was someone, like Hizbollah, who stood in the way of Israeli hegemony over the entire Middle East.

That desire by Israel goes a long way toward explaining why Israel has launched so many attacks on Lebanon and Syria. During the last several decades, Israel tried very hard to tame the country of Lebanon by using one excuse or another to invade that battered country. Each time, Israel came away without achieving its objective of control of Lebanon. It had installed Bashir Jamail as president only to see him assassinated during the confusion of the Lebanese Civil War. It conquered militarily the south of Lebanon in 1982, holding on to enough Lebanese territory to allow it to steal water out of the Litani River. By the year 2000, Hizbollah was strong enough to chase Israel out of Lebanon, remaining as a threat to Israel's hegemony from that time onward.

And Syria was warned not to get too rambunctious when Israel bombed Syria using one or another pretense to do so.

The most recent military planning by Israel to solidify what little hegemony it has over the area is the way it is shaking its fist at Iran, with the United States looking over its shoulder, adding weight to its threats against Iran.

What is different about this most recent threat is that Iran is no Iraq. Iran has the ways and means to retaliate against not only Israel, but against the United States as Israel's principal supporter in its efforts to tame Iran.

If we were to look rationally at the situation, we would soon realize that, while Iran is able to defend itself with the kind of military it possesses, it is quite incapable of invading another country, particularly one as militarily powerful as Israel. If we assume that Iran's nuclear program is intended to make a bomb, what earthly reason would it have to start a nuclear war against either Israel or the United States? Iran's leadership, while mouthy, and cruel toward its political dissidents, is not crazy enough to ask for someone to come in and wipe out their entire country, which is what certainly would happen should it start a war with nuclear weapons. Certainly, military and political people both in Israel and in the United States must realize this fact.

The most likely and rational reason behind such a nuclear program is one of self-defense against Israel, which has had a minimum of 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal.

What, then, is behind this most recent insanity by Israel's supporters in America and by Israel itself? We can almost certainly agree that Iran is another country standing in the way of Israel's desired hegemony. I've been told by those who should know that the publicity given to Iran's nuclear program is cutting down on Jews either visiting or emigrating to Israel. That is an economic argument that the United States should not enter into, especially by going to war on Israel's behalf. But it's clear that is what Israel and its supporters here want.

One wonders what to make of the American politicians who are very much like an echo chamber for Israel's talking points concerning Iran. Do they realize that by being led around by the nose by Israel and its Lobby is very much against U.S. interests? Do they realize that even if Israel begins bombing Iran, the United States will pay the price?

Do our politicians understand, that while it is good for their campaign contributions to be solicitous of Israel's objectives, it would be devastating for America to be threatened by even more terrorist attacks than we have been.What has been unspoken by the media and by political leaders is that our continuing support of Israel's objectives by not only financing Israel's military, but by invading Muslim countries for whatever reason only creates more danger for American interests?

This has been largely unspoken by our military and political leaders, but on occasion something will accidentally slip out, exposing the dangers to us for our blind support of Israel. George W. Bush, for example, blurted out, during a statement on the Iraq War, that it was not Israel's fault that we invaded Iraq. And lately, some of our generals are voicing their concerns about the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. But by and large, there is total silence on the issue by the media. Our leaders choose to remain silent on why our complicity with Israel puts us in danger from terrorist groups around the world, but plain and simple, that's what is causing the attacks on our interests. G.W. Bush tried to put a different face on it by saying that "they" hated our freedoms. We deserve better by our presidents.

It does not appear that any of our leaders, from President Obama on down to state legislators, care to rally solve our terrorism problem. (Last year, the South Dakota legislature enacted a resolution approving the 1998 Israeli slaughter in the Gaza Strip).

Iran has offered to join a nuclear weapons free Middle East, but it does not appear that our President cares to take them up on that offer. He would, it appears, need permission from Israel's right wing government to do so. After witnessing his most recent surrender to Netanyahu and his policies, it's not likely that he ever will join. For now, it is sufficient that a nuclear country like the United States can lecture other, smaller countries on who can and who can't have a nuclear weapon.

Are we asking too much that all nations foreswear possession of nuclear weapons, and not just those who are smaller than us?

Does anyone beside a few people in the United States see the danger to our country in being led around by the nose by the Israeli government?

____________


American Jewish Youth may Hold Key to Ending Radical Zionism


The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment

by Peter Beinart
The New York Review of Books
June 10, 2010

In 2003, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel. In response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen.

The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. “Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”

That Luntz encountered indifference was not surprising. In recent years, several studies have revealed, in the words of Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis, that “non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, feel much less attached to Israel than their elders,” with many professing “a near-total absence of positive feelings.” In 2008, the student senate at Brandeis, the only nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the Jewish state. MORE...

The New Bipolar "Bread and Circus" World

Editorial Opinion by: Dr. J. P. Hubert

A strange but remarkable phenomenon now exists in the realm of social discourse. Virtually all concepts which bear upon public policy are presented to the masses as essentially, a choice between two polar opposites. For example, there is the liberal vs. conservative, right vs. left, Republican vs. Democratic views, etc., as if there are no other frames of reference by which one might consider important issues of the day. This needless to say establishes a completely contrived and false dichotomy. It is as if a very attenuated/ distorting prism or lens has been placed before our collective minds eye.

Increasingly, society seems to have embraced the binary gestalt writ-large. For example, the only format which seems to be universally embraced by the corporate (especially television and radio) media when airing debate with respect to an issue of public policy is to arbitrarily select two individuals from opposite sides of the intellectual/political spectrum. Each is then allowed to spew forth their respective “talking points” in an exchange where rhetorical flourish and rank sophistry is allowed to pass for meaningful elucidation of opinion/position(s). Sober analysis and rational discussion through thoughtful and respectful interchange of ideas is simply never forthcoming.

Rather than a situation where so-called experts are asked to come reason together, what one routinely witnesses is largely impolite jousting between two individuals each of whom function as either paid or unpaid advocates for their respective positions—presumably neither would be invited back again were they to attempt anything else. It is inconceivable that one could arrive at the truth through the employment of this commonly utilized (largely entertainment oriented) vehicle/tactic. What it resembles is something akin to a sporting event where two teams compete in a game/contest until one prevails. The viewing public is expected to enthusiastically support one or the other of the two opponents since their positions are not only (presumably) mutually exclusive but supposedly representative of the entire universe of possibilities rather than artificially truncated ones. The entire situation would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Enter Hegel (As Always)

The above enumerated phenomenon has helped create a permanent societal split or division that--while varying to a minor degree on a percentage basis from time to time--never really comes to grip with the essence or nature of any issue/problem. Perhaps an explanation for this unfortunate dilemma is that an apparent Hegelian dialectic (thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) has become the chosen mechanism by which our oligarchical elites attempt to program/mold mass opinion. Not only does this technique seriously limit the bounds of acceptable public discourse, it implies that all issues of social import are ultimately to be resolved on the basis of a “rough and tumble” contest of wills and sophistic verbiage rather than any real sense of absolute truth(s) which might serve as guiding principles. This no doubt is a legacy of the Enlightenment. The crucial point is that the acceptable boundary for public discussion is artificially circumscribed by the ruling elites in such a way as to control outcomes both at the level of topic selection and subsequent debate parameters and verbal/written interaction. A good example of this phenomenon is the charade which transpires every four years in which the public is treated to the spectacle of appearing to select from a large field of candidates—two individuals to vie for President of the United States. In reality, the most interesting and controversial candidates are eliminated fairly early such that the two final candidates actually differ quite minimally in terms of domestic and foreign policy preferences. Judging by the evidence, this is by design of the ruling class. In the most recent presidential election, U.S. citizens were given the choice between two seemingly different individuals, one apparently traditional (Mc Cain) the other more exotic representing “change” (Obama)--who Americans presumably preferred. Yet, both were clearly funded by and beholden to the elite power brokers whose interests would be served irrespective of which one prevailed.

It is noteworthy that after only 4 months in office, President Obama has largely followed the Bush/Cheney foreign and domestic (especially economic) policies despite campaigning vociferously against them. There is no evidence that Mr. Obama intends to dismantle the American empire or significantly reduce US militarism. There is nothing to establish that he has repudiated the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. In fact he has authorized offensive US military (armed drones) attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan which have killed innocent non-combatants and most disturbingly announced a policy of preventive detention of “terrorists.” The latter immoral and illegal policy is more aggressive than what the Bush/Cheney administration attempted in that regard.

Abandonment of Reality, Reason

In reality, there are very few issues of public policy which can be adequately considered through the prism of a binary lens--even though doing so has become the new norm. Similarly the related notion that all social/political questions must have either a yes or no answer flies in the face of reality—if true all “what” questions or those having to do with the nature or being of things would be eliminated— an unfortunate but foreseeable effect of the post-Enlightenment abandonment of metaphysics. The result is an artificial oversimplification which does not mirror reality but instead serves as a rhetorical devise by which a proponent of one particular view attempts to dis-intellectually “score points” or in contemporary parlance “spin” the target audience.

Integral to construction of the bipolar worldview is the need to carefully narrow the formulation of any potential issue or premise. For example, one is either for or against gay “marriage” for or against enhanced interrogation (torture), in favor of or against “pre-emptive” war (when what is really meant is preventive war). All are vacuous notions without a careful articulation of what is actually meant by these terms. Once adequately defined that is, with precision, it is sometimes but not always possible to take a pro or con position with respect to some of the so-called issues of the day. The Western legal system now steeped in legal positivism and based as it is in a binary adversarial process clearly contributes to this phenomenon as well.


Constant "Evolution"

A related trend is the completely ad-hoc division that has occurred over what is considered a liberal vs.: conservative view with respect to a given issue. For example, strict literal interpretations of each term (liberal/conservative) yield entirely different conclusions than can be had from a review of commonly understood usages of the terms. In other words, the monikers liberal and conservative have no fixed or foundational meaning and are constantly subject to alteration based on the changing nature of various interest groups that comprise their political bases from time to time. This leads to incompatible contradictions with regard to the policies of self-described members of each group.

It is noteworthy that traditional Paleoconservatives eschew foreign wars of conquest and oppose so-called pre-emptive (preventive) wars. Neoconservatives enthusiastically support both. Which view should be thought to characterize the conservative position? In reality it is a >matter of opinion only. Historically, Neoconservatism is clearly the aberration. The change presumably reflects the result of an internal political power struggle rather than a natural (ideological) evolution among adherents of conservatism.

Theoretically, conservatives (in the sense of preserving the status quo) should favor the continuation of whatever has gone before. If historically the United States engaged in defensive war only--than preventive war would be incompatible with conservatism and vice-versa. By analogy if abortion has become the legal norm, after decades, the conservative view should be pro-abortion. Obviously, the terms are not meant to be taken literally yet it becomes clear that there really is an ad-hoc and arbitrary nature to what is considered liberal and conservative from time to time. Neither term is based on a stable worldview (epistemology, metaphysics and moral philosophy).


Similar contradictions have occurred with respect to the policy positions held by proponents of liberalism (now referred to as adherents of progressive politics—one assumes the change in name was made ostensibly for perceived commercial advantage). Prior to 1973, liberals as defined by the Democratic Party held--along with conservatives as put forth by the Republican Party--that abortion on demand was immoral (the prevailing moral philosophy at the time was still heavily influenced by the ...Christian Ethic) and should be kept illegal as a matter of public policy or at least left to the states to regulate. As a significant percentage of the Democratic Party base became composed of individuals with an interest in liberalizing the existing laws with respect to abortion, the party became “pro-choice” meaning in favor of either federal legislation or judicial action legalizing abortion on demand. In this case, the term liberal from a literal perspective appears to be more in-keeping with the moniker. The change however was made because of the demands of an active, large and growing interest group within the Democratic Party and the liberal establishment. Does that mean that pre-1973 the Democratic Party was conservative not liberal? Yes and no, the point here is that these terms are completely fluid and ultimately without lasting/foundational meaning. What is favored today may be shunned tomorrow by either. To say that one is either liberal or conservative without clarification/amplification is really to reveal almost nothing other than the affiliation of one’s current power-base.

Will to Power

Perhaps more astoundingly, the terms liberal and conservative have no cohesive/conceptual underpinnings which might unify the various disparate strains which make up each. In some respects, liberals appear to espouse conservative policies, in others, conservatives embrace liberal ones. Neoconservatives as has already been mentioned embrace aggressive foreign policy including preventive wars of aggression. This in reality is a very liberal not conservative view. Analogously, most liberals currently oppose foreign wars of aggression and excessive U.S. militarism (in the maintenance of American hegemony) despite the fact that to do so is really a traditionally conservative position. Thoughtful persons find that neither political party has a consistent underlying conceptually unified organizing principle. What then attracts the vast majority of people to one or the other belief system? In the absence of any core worldview orientation it appears that the choice of one or the other is based solely on the need to posses a power-base from which to operate. Since third parties (political) have not been successful in the United States, the choices available are either liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican irrespective of the fact that these terms are constantly changing and without ultimate meaning.

The media (talk-radio and cable especially) essentially mirror this artificial division. For example, Fox News represents the Neoconservative position; MSNBC largely reflects the Liberal or Progressive viewpoint. Similar divisions characterize talk-radio. Traditional or Paleoconservative views are left largely unrepresented by the corporate media with a few exceptions (e.g. Patrick J. Buchanan).

Part of the current bi-polar split involves a separation between Secularism and Traditionalism as the United States progressively abandons all semblance of tradition in favor of Secular Humanism. While liberalism/progressivism almost entirely ascribes to Secularism, there remain parts of the “conservative” coalition which attempt to adhere to more traditionalist views—primarily those Paleoconservatives from whom the Neoconservatives have rested control of the Republican Party. Nevertheless, even here, there is a great deal of overlap. For example, the so-called Libertarian wing of conservatism favors the liberalization of controlled substance laws e.g. Marijuana which most Paleoconservatives oppose. In that sense, Libertarians are much more like liberals (progressives) than traditional conservatives. They are more inclined to accept gay “marriage” than are Paleoconservatives on the grounds of individual liberty or on the basis of civil or personal “rights” criteria. These rights however are fictitious in that they are ungrounded in any fixed or foundational human anthropology (nature or essence). That is to say since the Enlightenment and in the wake of Darwinism (Darwinian philosophy or metaphysical naturalism), human nature is assumed to be fluid. Modern "rights" simply refer to the constantly changing desires/choices which various individuals and groups wish to see codified in the law from time to time.

It becomes apparent that the artificial bi-polar split articulated here is completely without ideological foundation. Evidence seems to indicate that it has become a favored mechanism by which the ruling elites exercise control over the masses. In reality this amounts to a kind of not so subtle Hegelian “brain-washing” which is utilized to change public opinion by making it appear that issues are being fairly debated and democratically resolved. One feels forced to conclude that the binary worldview is nothing but a ruse--a kind of “bread and circus” extravaganza which functions to keep the proletariat pacified while the oligarchical elites proceed with advancing their goals.

Neo-Conservatism The New “Stealth” Order / World View

This essay is reproduced by special request of a reader.

By: Dr. J. P. Hubert

A new “stealth” worldview has become popular among Secularists in the United States. It is referred to as Neoconservatism[1] and has been gaining influence for over 25 years in the wake of the discord and unrest associated with the 1960’s-1970’s and the Viet Nam War.[2] The original features of Neoconservatism are found below:

Table 1. 6 Propositions of Neoconservatism (First Generation)*
1. Theory of History- Evil exists and one must not shrink from one's duty.
2. Power- No substitute for it, especially military might. Power is Salvation.
3. America must be a Global leader- Creating a peaceful World requires "power." America is exceptional.
4. Respect for Authority is paramount- requires a “Religious” population best promoted through “traditional values.”
5. Constant Crisis Mode is necessary- the situation is always urgent and the need for action compelling. Disaster is always looming.
6. Leadership is the Antidote to “Crisis”- Leaders must Exercise power.
*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.

The author penned an essay originally available at TCR now at Lulu.com which outlined the two major worldviews which vie for ascendancy in the West; Secularism vs: Traditionalism.[3] It is fair to say that much of the Secularist agenda is either actively or passively embraced by the secular leaders of the neoconservative movement. Tragically many “hangers-on” including Evangelical Protestants and neo-conservative Catholics have yet to recognize that they have so to speak “hitched their wagons” to the Secularist camp by embracing the policies of the neoconservatives now in power, including the elites of both political parties. It is ironic indeed that neither has yet to appreciate the degree to which the neoconservative agenda is incompatible with their Traditionalist worldviews. In fact it is also fair to say that virtually all of the “hot-button” issues of our day are either significantly impacted or controlled by neoconservative ideology including American foreign and domestic policy. At its core, Neoconservatism embraces a Darwinian (survival of the fittest) mentality (epistemologically, metaphysically and morally) in which the historical reality of evil is recognized as foundational, the answer to which is overwhelming power (military and economic) and deception[4] of the masses.

Neo Conservatism and Morality:

In the moral realm for example, neoconservative thinking embraces the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in which the “ends” sought are allowed to justify the “means.” The author has written extensively as have many other moral philosophers who employ the Classical Aristotelian/Thomistic approach that utilitarianism is a completely inadequate moral philosophy for the solving of complex moral problems. The results obtained are almost always contrary to the Natural Law and Catholic moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. The following represents a summary in table form taken from one of the author’s formal presentations.

Table 2. Utilitarianism*
1.[Ends Justify Means] in pursuit of pleasure or “choice”. [Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill as part of British Empiricist movement in wake of Descartes “turn to subject” and abandonment of Aristotle’s “middle road” epistemology and his view of science in exchange for Newton’s mechanistic Cosmology.]

2. Non-moral theory in which the “greatest good” (aggregate pleasure) or benefit is sought for the greatest number, reduces to rabid notions of individual autonomy. Pragmatic, consequentialist, and detached from people as persons in the fullest sense of that term. Totally non-functional in practice unless Materialism is assumed.

3. Lacks explanatory power required for solving complex ethical dilemmas.

*Repudiated by JPII in Veritatis splendor under rubric of “Proportionalism” and “Consequentialism” Moral absolutes are rejected and Rom, 3: 8 is violated. Classical means/ends analysis is repudiated as is classical tripartite structure of moral act analysis.

Neoconservatism and the Law:

Utilitarianism frequently involves an absolute repudiation of the Natural Law in favor of the principles of the Enlightenment in that there are no fixed (Transcendent) truths which must be recognized or served. In fact this reality explains much of what functions as American neoconservative foreign and domestic policy including its approach to the U.S. constitution and the judiciary.

For example, neoconservatives pay lip service to the constitutional principle of “original intent” but in practice embrace legal (pragmatism) positivism (ultimately a Darwinian concept from its inception)[5] rather than grounding the civil law in the Natural Law and Divine Revelation as the Founders did. This means that all civil laws are changeable based on evolving social and moral standards. Thus we had President Bush’s nomination of Judge John Roberts for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Roberts is a legal pragmatist tactician of superb ability who makes no bones about rejecting the principles of the Natural Law and Divine Revelation in functioning as a Judge. He recognizes no overarching (Transcendent or Touchstone) principles which are always and everywhere true. He stated clearly before the Senate Judiciary Committee that his judicial approach will be to consider the individual case before him the so-called “law of the case” with its legal precedent (Stare Decisis) first and foremost in his mind, irrespective of whether it violates the common morality and the Natural Law. Only thereafter will he consider other issues such as “workability” fairness and the like which might be considered for example in potentially overturning a standing or “settled” law.

Robert’s view of human anthropology (based on his writings and Senate Judiciary Committee testimony) is Darwinian/neo-conservative as well rather than traditionalist. He specifically denies being influenced by any “personal” (code for religious or moral) deeply held beliefs when functioning in his role as a jurist, making him a “secularist” in practice. Logic dictates that either he was honest in his testimony and therefore has no qualms about civil laws which contradict the Natural Law and Divine Revelation such as abortion, or he was purposely dishonest and evasive in order to be confirmed (a case of the “ends justify the means” that). In either case, he embraces utilitarianism rather than classical moral philosophy/Catholic moral theology and we can expect little help from him in reversing Roe v: Wade.

Neoconservatism and Economics:

In the economic realm neoconservatives are also Darwinian.[6] Most are devoted to the unbridled free market capitalism of Adam Smith where brute “market forces” are allowed (unfettered) to determine the landscape.[7] This system inherently predisposes to “haves” and “have-nots” a kind of bi-polar class system; the rich and the poor with very little long-term middle class existence or stability (where a tripartite class system insures a healthy middle class as is seen in “managed” capitalism sensitive to the concepts of solidarity and subsidiarity). The controlling economic gestalt as in foreign policy is “winning (overwhelming others) by the use of superior force and power” amounting to what is essentially a zero-sum game. Thus we see ever increasing consolidation of companies into mega-corporations and the creation of overpowering monopolies, case in point the large oil companies which engaged in “price-gouging” due to the effects of Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita. In order for some to become unconscionably rich, others must be poor, since there are only a finite number of resources available. Neoconservatives have absolutely no problem with this as is evidenced by the Bush administration Secretary of Energy’s comment that the oil companies are doing a good job after the Hurricanes (There profits had tripled in the following year).

As an example of the above, we have in the United States the largest differential worldwide when comparing the yearly compensation of CEO’s of major corporations and that of their lowest respective wage-earners. Catholic teaching holds that both communism and unbridled capitalism are morally evil since they are destructive of basic human dignity. Free Market Capitalism must be “managed” in light of the principles of the Natural Law and be sensitive to the true nature of “man” as created in the Imago Dei in order to be just.[8] Neoconservative economic principles repudiate the Natural Law and thus are largely incompatible with Catholic teaching in the economic arena.[9] This explains why Americans tolerate the consumption and export of pornography in ever increasing numbers. There is absolutely no inhibition when it comes to generating income whether the so called “free enterprise is morally licit or not. The objectification of women and the young is encouraged (as part of inter-state commerce and ever larger profits; both being instrumentalized through seductive television, “bill-board” ads and motion pictures in order to maximize economic growth). All of this is perfectly compatible with Darwinian neoconservative economic policy and rabid unbridled free market capitalism. This is an example of utilizing persons not as “subjects” deserving of basic human dignity and respect but as objects to be used, abused and discarded (even secular Kantian's should cringe).

History:

The history of American Neoconservatism arguably dates to the early 20th century and several academic German/Jewish intellectuals including Professor Leo Strauss[10] who was purportedly a secular Zionist (Professor of Political Philosophy, University of Chicago) the philosophical progenitor of many contemporary public policy elites including several neoconservative Bush administration officials and other members of the Washington establishment in both political parties.[11] Strauss was an avid opponent of modern liberalism having been an admirer of Martin Heidegger and by extension Nietzsche’s philosophy (itself Darwinian).[12] It was later developed by several first generation neoconservatives including Norman Podhoretz[13] (for many years editor of Commentary) and Irving Kristol. Later, in the second generation came Irving’s son William (now editor of Commentary’s “replacement” The Weekly Standard), Michael Ledeen, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among others. The following represents a modification of the first generation neoconservative principles outlined above.

Table 3. 5 Propositions of Second Generation Neoconservatism*

1. American Global dominion is benign and other nations agree.
2. Failure of U.S. to sustain imperial status would result in global disorder.
3. Force works and must be used.
4. U.S. Military Supremacy is essential.
5. Idealism not Realism will achieve stated goals. (The Realist policies of Kissinger and Powell must be repudiated).

*Bacevich, Andrew J. The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005.

Andrew Bacevich has written well of American Neoconservatism;

“The conception of politics to which neoconservatives paid allegiance owed more to the ethos of the Left than to the orthodoxies of the Right. Their ultimate ideological objective was not to preserve but to transform. They viewed state power not as a necessary evil but as a positive good to be cultivated and then deployed in pursuit of large objectives.”[14]
“Their aim was nothing if not ambitious; to reverse the verdict of the 1960’s, to repair the political and cultural damage done by that decade, and ….to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage.” [15]

It is clear from the above that many neoconservatives were former “leftists” who wished to transform society through revolution. As the Democratic party embraced pacifism and sexual libertinism in the 1960’ and 70’s, neoconservatives moved to the Republican Party with the goal of co-opting what had historically been a political party made up largely of paleoconservatives (traditional conservatives) and isolationist libertarians who eschewed foreign military escapades and “big government” spending. By ingeniously enlisting the aid of Protestant Evangelicals who despised what they viewed as a leftist led disintegration of Judeo-Christian morality and destruction of the military (for them a bastion of traditional values and morality), the neoconservatives succeeded in gaining control of the Republican Party and much of the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment in less than two decades. This was a phenomenal accomplishment by any standard.

It is important to recognize that the Republican Party and much of the Washington power elite are now controlled by neoconservatives. The term is oxymoronic in that there is almost nothing “conservative” about Neoconservatism. It does not wish to conserve anything least of all tradition. It is committed to increasing and projecting economic and military power. Its goal is to “transform” American society and the world along secular neoconservative (Darwinian “survival of the fittest) lines. This necessarily requires the use of a utilitarian “moral” philosophy which everyone should understand and ignore at their peril. Recall that utilitarianism is incompatible with Catholic Moral Theology as promulgated by the Magisterium. See Pope John Paul II’s seminal work Veritatis Splendor (1993) for details including his repudiation of proportionalism, consequentialism etc.

Neoconservatism and Protestant Evangelicalism:

Bacevich cogently writes in his book that Protestant evangelicalism had a major role in increasing U.S. militarism/imperialism dating to the post-Vietnam era (due to its belief that the U.S. needed to be strong militarily in order to protect Israel against any and all aggression [a result of their pre-millennial dispensationalism] which is part of their understanding of the "end-time" tribulation scenario and their belief that Armageddon is imminent).[16] He argues that the secular “Neo-cons” teamed up with the Protestant Evangelicals to take over the Republican Party recognizing in them a powerful group they could co-opt for their plan to use the U.S. military as a tool for foreign “power projection” (domination). The neo-con's wished to bring American [democratic/actually imperialistic] "values" to the entire world through "force" if necessary in order to eliminate potential threats before they materialize as modern day Israel does.[17] This leads inexorably to the Bush Doctrine of preventive/pre-emptive war.[18] Perhaps the sine-quê-non of Neoconservatism as it is practiced today is the projection of American power abroad through use of the all professional voluntary U.S. military. This has also led to what Bacevich terms a growing American militarism/imperialism where the military is increasingly isolated from the public it serves.

Many social/cultural conservatives have wondered aloud why the Republican Party courts their votes at election time only to largely abandon them afterwards.[19] The answer in part can be found in the fact that neo-conservative secularists now completely control the Republican Party and they have teamed-up with Protestant Evangelicals in order to create a winning plurality. Secular neo-conservatives have for over two decades recognized that if they “played-along” with Evangelicals (in their quest to restore “moral values” to the U.S. by using the military triad of duty, honor, country as a template) they could utilize the power it conferred by engaging in an activist/hegemonic foreign policy.[20] In fact neoconservatives are enamored by religion and the fervor it inspires in achieving their goals. Few however are personally spiritually committed preferring to see religion as a sort of balm for the masses. All of this should not but unfortunately does come as a complete surprise to many Evangelicals and other cultural and paleo-conservatives. However, once the election is over, the “lip service” regarding “family and moral values” has been paid and it is back to business as usual (the pursuit of economic and military power), again alienating cultural and paleoconservatives and even some libertarian conservatives. Perhaps the only reason they remain loyal to the Party is due to the ineffectiveness of third party candidacies in the U.S. Needless to say, they derive next to nothing for their loyalty and support.

Foreign Policy:

Turning to the foreign policy initiatives of American Neoconservatism including the use of warfare in general as an extension of U.S. power and specifically the Iraq War, it is useful to engage in a formal moral analysis utilizing the “3” classical elements which are applicable to every moral decision. For a classical moral (philosophical) analysis of the so-called “preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War as a function of neoconservative foreign policy, the following is presented which is borrowed from the author’s “PowerPoint” presentation on a speech entitled: “Justice and Freedom for the Human Embryo” in which a similar moral analysis was carried out.

Table 4. 3 Classical Components of a Moral Decision*
1. The OBJECT freely specified [Chosen] (what it’s about),
proximate “end” (Species).** Also called “MEANS.”
2. The INTENT, motive or further “End” (Genus).
3. The CIRCUMSTANCES or situation.

*May, William E. An Introduction to Moral Theology. Second Edition, Huntington Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 2003, pp. 170-174. Aquinas held that all “3” must be licit in order for the moral act to be justified (S.T. 1-2, 18, entire question).
** Pope JPII, Veritatis splendor, 71-81, 1993. Specifically #78 “The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the “object” rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas.” (Referencing Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 18, a. 6.)

It is readily apparent that there exist “3” classical elements which must be considered in each and every moral decision the object freely chosen (means) the intent (motive) and the circumstances. All “3” must be correctly specified and applied in order for the moral decision to be valid. With respect to the decision to engage in a preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq, the elements are properly depicted as follows:

Table 5. The “3” Components of a Moral Decision in the Preventive/Pre-emptive Iraq War*

1. Object freely specified, (Chosen), or Proximate “end”, also called “MEANS.”
Offensive Military “First Strike Lethality” to effect Iraqi Regime Change [Neo- Cons substitute “spreading democracy” and American “values” in the Middle East here] which is incorrect/deceptive in that accomplishing it requires a morally illicit [violent] “means” (technique or method) for dubiously “insuring” American security (the intent). The objective freely chosen is Offensive “First Strike Lethality” not “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.

2. Intent Motive or Further End.
Insure American Security and limit or eliminate Terrorism

3. Circumstances of Situation.
Terrorism and Reduced Security is the 21st Century Reality. Was there WMD in Iraq prior to invasion? (Analysis assumes a pre-invasion perspective).

The above demonstrates utilizing classical Aristotelian/Thomistic moral philosophical principles why “elite” neo-conservative reasoning is in error with respect to waging the Iraq War. The actual “means” employed are evil that is morally illicit since they involve choosing to inflict “first-strike” offensive lethality upon a perceived enemy (contrary to the Just War Doctrine which allows for legitimate defense only and to Rom. 3: 8). “Spreading Democracy” while potential valuable, cannot be accomplished “defensively” by force. The two concepts are contradictory. Democracy can be proposed but not imposed. “Spreading Democracy” must be done passively (peacefully) to be morally licit. Since not all “3” of the elements in the moral triad above are valid, the conclusion is that a preventive/pre-emptive Iraq War is unjustified morally.

Some neoconservative moralists have argued that the neoconservative “Bush Doctrine” of preventive/pre-emptive war is an example of “Double Effect.” Therefore, it is necessary to review the classical requirements of same depicted below.

Table 6. “Double Effect” in Practice*
(Could Preventive War be “Double Effect”?)

1. The directly intended object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself) i.e. it must be a good action judged from its moral object.
2. The intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible (i.e. must only indirectly intend the harm).
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the foreseen harmful effects and be not achievable without them.
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects.
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

*Principles of Double Effect from Finnis, John. Moral Absolutes: Tradition, Revision and Truth, (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1991).
Answer: NO, #’s 1, 3, 4 & 5 are violated by engaging in Preventive/Pre-emptive war.

As can be readily appreciated, preventive/pre-emptive war violates # 1 above since it is always and everywhere wrong to purposely wage offensive war (by the tenets of the Just War Doctrine and sacred writ (Rom. 3: 8) that one must never do evil that good may come of it). In #2 above neoconservatives argue that they do not directly intend to harm innocents since they now utilize “smart weaponry.” However, they do intend to lethally harm the enemy combatants offensively rather than defensively by employing aggressively lethal offensive “means” through use of their weapons and they do kill innocent non-combatants as a matter of routine which is completely predictable and knowable in advance. One could give them the benefit of the doubt here regarding the intent not to harm innocents, however, the destructive nature of the “smart” weapons and the regularity of large numbers of innocent combatant deaths (in the thousands in Iraq) makes this difficult. In # 3 above, it is clear that the potential benefit of installing a friendly “democratic” regime in Iraq is had only by means of the foreseen harmful effect of invasion, thus violating it. Number 4 has been violated in that the harmful effects in Iraq are horrendous by any conceivable standard and for the foreseeable future outweigh any potential positive benefit. Number 5 has been violated because the harmful effects have immediately followed the action without significant beneficial effect to date. There can be no advantage to a democratically elected interim government which is unable to provide basic infrastructure and security for its people since it has failed in it duty to govern. In that regard they are worse off than prior to the invasion. Therefore, it is clear that the preventive/pre-emptive war in Iraq is not an example of double effect.

In light of the above, it is now necessary to state clearly that the so-called “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emption/preventive war is fundamentally incompatible with the Just War Doctrine[21] and with Catholic teaching on war as it has been continuously promulgated by the Magisterium. The Just War Doctrine is reproduced here as it appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Table 7. “Just War Doctrine” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2309)

1. The strict conditions for legitimate defense (emphasis mine) by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: \
2. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
3. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
4. There must be serious prospects of success;
5. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”[22]

Catholics and the Iraq War

The author is well aware that a significant number of American neoconservative Catholic moralists utilizing the above criteria have concluded that the Iraq War is “just” and compatible with the JWD properly applied. Please see my essay [now contained in my book War, Peace and Terrorism: A Return to Sanity in a Post- 9/11 World now available at Lulu.com] entitled; “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? for a response and refutation of that position.[23] In that regard the reader is reminded that multiple and consistent Vatican statements were promulgated by the Magisterium in protest of the planned U.S. invasion of Iraq, meaning that despite the high level Vatican visit of Catholic neoconservative Michael Novak on behalf of the U.S. administration, the Magisterium rejected the U.S. argument for preventive war. This means that American Catholic neoconservatives are at odds with the historical/traditional position which the Church has taken on “Just War” as well as the recent reiteration of same by the Magisterium. In fact the neo-conservative attempt (depicted above) to morph legitimate “defense” against aggression into preventive/pre-emptive (offensive) war is tantamount to metaphysical slight of hand that is; sophistry designed to justify a new (neo-conservative) approach to the projection of American hegemony through the use of military power whether recognized by the respective Catholic neoconservatives or not.[24] The result has been an increasingly aggressive imperial foreign policy and a repudiation of Just War Doctrinal principles where offensive use of military force is utilized to advance perceived American “interests” abroad[25] These “interests” too often reduce to simple greed which in the case of Iraq includes American dependence on Gulf Oil for the maintenance of an overly indulgent use of total world resources. Needless to say it is an extremely dangerous course and one which few Americans fully understand.

Unfortunately, some seemingly misguided pro-Iraq War neoconservative Catholic moralists who support the secularist neo-conservative stance on the Iraq War have also argued (apparently on the basis of language in the CCC) that the decision to wage war is a prudential one which is appropriately made only by the civil authorities who bear the ultimate responsibility for the common good (see quotation in Table 7 above).[26] While this is technically true it is only instrumentally so. As this author wrote in another essay:

”In a representative democracy, issues of public policy are debated and subjected to a vote of the citizenry, after which initiatives are enacted primarily through their elected representatives including the President. This cannot be accomplished without the populous being adequately informed and their wishes being known. Thus it is clear that the public has a responsibility for evaluating the moral licitness of any potential war prior to its being waged and after it has commenced. It is vital that the population remain engaged enough to provide the necessary oversight and re-evaluation as war is waged. What may be justified initially may not remain so due to changes “on the ground.” Therefore, the argument that war-making is a prudential judgment of the responsible authorities only is very misleading and results in wrongly absolving from moral responsibility the population in whose name it is waged.”[27]

Tragically many Catholic rank and file “Neo-con's” have “bought into” the entire secularist neoconservative/Evangelical enterprise not recognizing that much of it including the foreign military policy portion of neo-conservatism is contrary to Catholic teaching. It is based on a Calvinist rendering of scripture grounded as it is in the TULIP doctrine the first principle of which is “Total Moral Depravity” that is, since the “fall from grace” human beings are hopelessly lost despite an initial very good Creation. The Catholic position instead is more balanced and holds that human beings are seriously wounded but not totally depraved and continues to see good in the created realm including some good in every human life since all are created in the Imago Dei whether friend or foe, saint or sinner. Calvinist/neoconservative apologists utilize a largely Old Testament (e.g. pro-capital punishment as found in the Pentateuch) understanding of morality which also stresses the concept of total moral depravity thus tending to view the world in a bi-polar way that is; good vs: bad, saints vs: sinners, right vs: wrong, us vs: them. This ironically is actually quite consistent with the secularist neoconservative (Darwinist) view of “might makes right” and the historical reality of “evil” that remains a pillar of neoconservative philosophy (how ironic that most evangelical's detest Darwin and yet many embrace Darwinian (neoconservative) policies).

The Catholic view makes use of the Socratic/Aristotelian/Thomistic synthesis and avoids the post-Enlightenment [a substitute for Christianity] (Mills and Humean) adversarial culture (based as it is in the utilitarian and empirical approach in which no transcendent absolute truths exist). It is worth noting that the U.S. inherited this tradition from Great Britain being that the original Americans and Founding Fathers were direct descendants of the Enlightenment and influenced by the British Empiricist movement. Tragically, most Evangelicals and neoconservative Catholics are apparently unaware of this.[28]

The Catholic position again is more nuanced recognizing that each human being is a work in progress and with sanctifying grace can eventually partake of the beatific vision via a process of continued conversion through the power of the Holy Spirit. Due to their Calvinist hermeneutic, Evangelical neoconservatives often conceive of "offensive" military might as evincing the hand of God at work in favoring a “chosen people.” Andrew Bacevich writes that Evangelical's saw this Old Testament pattern played out again in modern Israel’s “preventive” invasion of Lebanon and their pre-emptive/prophylactic bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, in which the Israeli’s employed “offensive action” (not limiting themselves to defensive actions compatible with "Just War” doctrine) in order to prevent or avert a perceived threat.[29] Given Evangelical’s (Calvinist) experience with modern Israel’s “successful” preventive attacks, and their belief that the United States represents the “New Jerusalem” the “shining city upon a hill” with a manifest destiny to rule the world until the rise of the revived Roman Empire and the anti-Christ, this Old Testament hermeneutic was readily assimilable to an aggressive (neoconservative) foreign military policy of imperialism or “might makes right.”

Bacevich effectively argues in the author’s estimation that Evangelical’s assent to both Israeli offensive actions signaled for neoconservatives the acceptance of a total redefinition of classic/historical Just War Doctrinal principles (which previously sanctioned only defensive actions).[30] In way of clarification, neoconservatives and their evangelical partners no longer accept "Just War" principles as classically understood and neither does modern Israel. Both have been granted a sort of “chosen” status (what Bacevich refers to as a special dispensation) which renders a strict application of the JWD gratuitous. They have redefined “defense” to include “preventive attacks” based upon a probability calculus that is heavily dependent on “intelligence” factors which have now been shown to be unreliable. Thus it is apparent that well catechized Catholics should have recognized the “Bush Doctrine” as incompatible with the Catholic faith through the use of reason and by the consistent statements promulgated by the Vatican.

Catholic teaching interprets the Old Testament in light of the New and in light of the reality of the incarnated Christ who advocated conversion of heart (soul) as well as peaceful.[31] evangelism (propose the Gospel not impose it). Christ renounced the Old Testament practice of capital punishment when presented with a concrete example in which the old law called for it.[32] Christ also repudiated adherence to the “letter of the law” without proper attention to its “spirit” and redressed the Pharisees and Sadducee's for failing to “practice what they preached.” In HIS very person Christ embodied the progressive arrow of non-violence and mercy (rather than the simple justice of an “eye for an eye”) which followed the march of history from the earliest Patriarchal period to the time of the Roman Empire during which He lived. The Calvinist (false Augustinian) emphasis on Old Testament morality which is integral to Protestant Evangelicalism and is endorsed by secular neoconservatives is therefore contrary to orthodox Catholicism as it has been handed down for almost 2000 years. It would be well for “Catholic” neoconservatives to reflect on this reality.

It is apparent then that the elites who presently control foreign and domestic policy (represented by the leaders of both political parties) in the United States are wedded to a secular worldview in which economic and military power is the paramount goal. Their neoconservative “movement” represents a new stealth 21st century pagan (post-enlightenment) “Secularism.” It is evident that they have shrewdly enlisted many unsuspecting Protestant Evangelicals, and politically conservative “Catholics” as well as dissatisfied paleo-conservatives and libertarian conservatives and independents in their cause. The “movement” is fundamentally at odds with orthodox Catholicism rightly understood. It behooves faithful Catholics to shine the light of transparency on what is increasingly an immoral enterprise.

NOTES:

[1] Neoconservatism has 6 basic tenets in its original form, 5 according to the second generation of neoconservatives now in power. It bears very little resemblance to classical (Paleo) conservatism which favored conservative social, economic and foreign policy. Neoconservatives favor an aggressive foreign policy which utilizes military power to spread American “democratic” values and only tacitly supports conservative social and cultural policies for politically expedient reasons, such as its embracing of the “values” of Protestant Evangelical's and like-minded neoconservative Catholics. It embraces large budgets particularly in the service of military spending in order to insure the ability to project American power abroad. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) for further details; See also: Irving Kristol, “The Neo-Conservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is.” The Weekly Standard, Volume 008, Issue 47, August 8, 2003; Irving Kristol. Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea. (New York: The Free Press, 1995) .
[2] Interestingly enough, neoconservative ideas now permeate both Democrat and Republican Parties and are promulgated by adherents of each. Thus irrespective of which Party controls Congress or the Executive Branch, neoconservative ideas prevail.
[3] See my “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” formerly at TCR http://www.tcrnews2.com/genworld.html now at Lulu.com.
[4] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/
[5] J.P. Hubert MD FACS “The Rise of Secularism and the Contemporary Culture War” at Lulu.com
[6] In contradistinction to paleoconservatives who while economically competitive had a basic historical commitment to the Judeo-Christian ethic, including fixed notions of right and wrong as well as fair-play.
[7] This is obviously incompatible with Catholic social teaching.
[8] This includes a proper balance between solidarity and subsidiarity as well as an equitable distribution of the world’s limited resources.
[9] Occasionally, neoconservatives propose initiatives which are compatible with Catholic teaching both in terms of solidarity and subsidiarity e.g. the Bush administration’s “Faith-Based Initiative.”
[10] Jim Lobe, “Leo Strauss' Philosophy of Deception”, AlterNet. May 19, 2003 at http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/; for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Life. [11] E.g. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy Secretary of Defense now Head of the World Bank, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone. Other Bush administration officials who are sympathetic to neoconservative views include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This list is not exhaustive.
[12] Martin Heidegger, (1889-1976) was a German philosopher, who was one of the developers of existential phenomenology. He was a student of Edmund Husserl, studied Roman Catholic theology and then philosophy at the University of Freiburg, where he became the “founder” of phenomenology. Besides Husserl, Heidegger was especially influenced by the pre-Socratics (rather than Socrates, Plato or Aristotle), by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. For more information see: http://www.connect.net/ron/heid.html.
[13] Norman Podhoretz. Making It (New York, 1967), Breaking Ranks (New York, 1979), Ex-Friends (New York, 1999).
[14] Bacevich, Andrew J, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005), p. 71. [15] Ibid, p. 70.
[16] This view holds that Christ’s return does not occur until after the Jews (Israel) return to the “promised land” (1948 from their perspective). Purportedly, the eschatological clock is started after a peace treaty is made through the intercession of a powerful world leader (the anti-Christ) which insures the safety and security of the Jews. This begins a 7 year period the first half of which is a 3 ½ year period of “minor” tribulation. It is followed by the desecration of the newly rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem (by the anti-Christ who declares himself God on Earth). It requires that the Jews have effective control of Jerusalem in order to re-build the Jewish Temple in which this occurs. This explains why Evangelicals violently oppose any Israeli/Palestinian solution which deprives Israel of the Temple-mount in Jerusalem. The major period of distress the so-called major or Great Tribulation then continues for the last 3 ½ years until the battle of Armageddon and the literal return of Christ to the Earth after which HE initiates a literal/physical thousand year reign. This scenario is completely incompatible with Catholic teaching on eschatology which among other things denies that Christ will reign physically on earth for one thousand years after HIS glorious return.
[17] Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, 2005.
[18] Charles Krauthammer, “The Bush Doctrine,” Weekly Standard, June 4, 2001. [19] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 136.
[20] Ibid, pp. 69-96.
[21] See my “The Iraq War: A Tragic Misapplication of Just-War Theory or a Failure of “Intelligence”? Available as a chapter in my above referenced book at Lulu.com, for a discussion of the Just War Doctrine and ethical implications.
[22] CCC # 2265 p.545 “Letitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” [This should not be taken to mean that citizens residing in a nation state are immune or exempt from a reasoned evaluation of the case for war which in itself would be an abdication of their own sacred responsibility to “do good and avoid evil.” In a representative democracy (Republic) the lack of requisite citizen support for war makes it effectively (practically) impossible for the authorities to carry out, JPHJ].
[23] Ibid.
[24] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available in my above referenced book at Lulu.com.
[25] Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2005).
[26] See Mark and Louise Zwick, “Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity: Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected” Houston Catholic Worker Vol. XXIII, No. 4, July-August 2003; George Weigel, “The Just War Case for War” America, March 31, 2003; See for some earlier neoconservative writing by George Weigel, “On the Road to Isolationism?” Commentary 93 (January 1992).
[27] J.P. Hubert Jr. MD FACS, “Proposal for Solving Iraq/Terrorism Debacle: Return to Legitimate Defense” available at Lulu.com as a chapter in my above referenced book.
[28] Note the British and American legal systems are both adversarial rather than Socratic where determining the “truth” is more a function of lawyerly competence then any mutual attempt to reason and arrive at the truth. Facts are what can be admitted into evidence as determined by the judge at the trial court level and become “fixed” as part of the “law of the case.” Courts of Appeals rarely review the original “facts” as they failed to do in the Schiavo case. This methodology is also seen in the debate format Television shows that have featured bi-polar shouting matches in which complex topics are reduced to bi-polar “sound-bites.”
[29] Bacevich, The New American Militarism, p. 133.
[30] Ibid, p.134.
[31] Scripture includes only one example where it appears that Christ became "angry" and could have been perceived as non-peaceful (HIS response to the money-changers in HIS Father’s house).
[32] See John 8: 3-11 for Christ’s rejection of the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. At the time the letter of the Hebrew Law called for “stoning” the woman to death.

"6" Years Later, what is the Lesson of 9/11?

While the attacks on New York and Washington can never be justified since they clearly violated the first and second principles of the Natural Law--do good/avoid evil and treat your neighbor fairly, it must in all intellectual honesty be admitted that the blatantly imperialistic foreign policy of the United States including the garrisoning of American troops on Muslim soil (prior to the first gulf war) was the precipitating factor. This much is known beyond reasonable doubt if only by examination of the numerous public pre-9/11 statements of Osama bin Laden. In addition, copious data now exist which establish the same, well presented by many among the academic foreign policy community. See my War, Peace and Terrorism for references.

Had it not been for our uneven support of right wing Israeli (Likud) politics over those of the Arab Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and our decades long interference in the affairs of Arab and Iranian governments, 9/11 might not have occurred. This is painful to admit yet rationally demanded nonetheless upon examination of the historical record and in the absence of a-priori bias in favor of what now is the ascendant Neoconservative policy views of both US political parties.

The answer to so-called "Jihadi based terrorism" is not to be found in further immoral wars of aggression or the occupation of additional Arab lands but in the return to a humble foreign policy in which war is engaged in as a last resort for defensive purposes only. This means a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive (preventive) war at a minimum. It also implies that a paradigm shift in US energy policy is absolutely imperative! The fact that global fossil fuel reserves (primarily concentrated in the Middle East) are likely to last less than 30 more years strongly suggests that American presence in the Persian Gulf area is primarily energy related.

The United States simply does not have the moral right or the necessary resources to monopolize the distribution of increasingly scant hydrocarbon energy reserves.