A Revolution in Spirit
By Benjamin R. Barber
February 24, 2009 "The Nation" -- As America, recession mired, enters the hope-inspired age of Barack Obama, a silent but fateful struggle for the soul of capitalism is being waged. Can the market system finally be made to serve us? Or will we continue to serve it? George W. Bush argued that the crisis is "not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system." But while it is going too far to declare that capitalism is dead, George Soros is right when he says that "there is something fundamentally wrong" with the market theory that stands behind the global economy, a "defect" that is "inherent in the system."
The issue is not the death of capitalism but what kind of capitalism--standing in which relationship to culture, to democracy and to life? President Obama's Rubinite economic team seems designed to reassure rather than innovate, its members set to fix what they broke. But even if they succeed, will they do more than merely restore capitalism to the status quo ante, resurrecting all the defects that led to the current debacle?
Being economists, even the progressive critics missing from the Obama economic team continue to think inside the economic box. Yes, bankers and politicians agree that there must be more regulatory oversight, a greater government equity stake in bailouts and some considerable warming of the frozen credit pump. A very large stimulus package with a welcome focus on the environment, alternative energy, infrastructure and job creation is in the offing--a good thing indeed.
But it is hard to discern any movement toward a wholesale rethinking of the dominant role of the market in our society. No one is questioning the impulse to rehabilitate the consumer market as the driver of American commerce. Or to keep commerce as the foundation of American public and private life, even at the cost of rendering other cherished American values--like pluralism, the life of the spirit and the pursuit of (non-material) happiness--subordinate to it.
Economists and politicians across the spectrum continue to insist that the challenge lies in revving up inert demand. For in an economy that has become dependent on consumerism to the tune of 70 percent of GDP, shoppers who won't shop and consumers who don't consume spell disaster. Yet it is precisely in confronting the paradox of consumerism that the struggle for capitalism's soul needs to be waged.
The crisis in global capitalism demands a revolution in spirit--fundamental change in attitudes and behavior. Reform cannot merely rush parents and kids back into the mall; it must encourage them to shop less, to save rather than spend. If there's to be a federal lottery, the Obama administration should use it as an incentive for saving, a free ticket, say, for every ten bucks banked. Penalize carbon use by taxing gas so that it's $4 a gallon regardless of market price, curbing gas guzzlers and promoting efficient public transportation. And how about policies that give producers incentives to target real needs, even where the needy are short of cash, rather than to manufacture faux needs for the wealthy just because they've got the cash?
Or better yet, take in earnest that insincere MasterCard ad, and consider all the things money can't buy (most things!). Change some habits and restore the balance between body and spirit. Refashion the cultural ethos by taking culture seriously. The arts play a large role in fostering the noncommercial aspects of society. It's time, finally, for a cabinet-level arts and humanities post to foster creative thinking within government as well as throughout the country. Time for serious federal arts education money to teach the young the joys and powers of imagination, creativity and culture, as doers and spectators rather than consumers.
Recreation and physical activity are also public goods not dependent on private purchase. They call for parks and biking paths rather than multiplexes and malls. Speaking of the multiplex, why has the new communications technology been left almost entirely to commerce? Its architecture is democratic, and its networking potential is deeply social. Yet for the most part, it has been put to private and commercial rather than educational and cultural uses. Its democratic and artistic possibilities need to be elaborated, even subsidized.
Of course, much of what is required cannot be leveraged by government policy alone, or by a stimulus package and new regulations over the securities and banking markets. A cultural ethos is at stake. For far too long our primary institutions--from education and advertising to politics and entertainment--have prized consumerism above everything else, even at the price of infantilizing society. If spirit is to have a chance, they must join the revolution.
The costs of such a transformation will undoubtedly be steep, since they are likely to prolong the recession. Capitalists may be required to take risks they prefer to socialize (i.e., make taxpayers shoulder them). They will be asked to create new markets rather than exploit and abuse old ones; to simultaneously jump-start investments and inventions that create jobs and help generate those new consumers who will buy the useful and necessary things capitalists make once they start addressing real needs (try purifying tainted water in the Third World rather than bottling tap water in the First!).
The good news is, people are already spending less, earning before buying (using those old-fashioned layaway plans) and feeling relieved at the shopping quasi-moratorium. Suddenly debit cards are the preferred plastic. Parental "gatekeepers" are rebelling against marketers who treat their 4-year-olds as consumers-to-be. Adults are questioning brand identities and the infantilization of their tastes. They are out in front of the politicians, who still seem addicted to credit as a cure-all for the economic crisis.
And Barack Obama? We elected a president committed in principle to deep change. Rather than try to back out of the mess we are in, why not find a way forward? What if Obama committed the United States to reducing consumer spending from 70 percent of GDP to 50 percent over the next ten years, bringing it to roughly where Germany's GDP is today? The Germans have a commensurate standard of living and considerably greater equality. Imagine all the things we could do without having to shop: play and pray, create and relate, read and walk, listen and procreate--make art, make friends, make homes, make love.
Sound too soft? Too idealistic? If we are to survive the collapse of the unsustainable consumer capitalism that has possessed our body politic over the past three decades, idealism must become the new realism. For if the contest is between the material body defined by solipsistic acquisitiveness and the human spirit defined by imagination and compassion, then a purely technical economic response is what will be too soft, promising little more than a restoration of that shopaholic hell of hyper-consumerism that occasioned the current disaster.
There are epic moments in history, often catalyzed by catastrophe, that permit fundamental cultural change. The Civil War not only brought an end to slavery but knit together a wounded country, opened the West and spurred capitalist investment in ways that created the modern American nation. The Great Depression legitimized a radical expansion of democratic interventionism; but more important, it made Americans aware of how crucial equality and social justice (buried in capitalism's first century) were to America's survival as a democracy.
Today we find ourselves in another such seminal moment. Will we use it to rethink the meaning of capitalism and the relationship between our material bodies and the spirited psyches they are meant to serve? Between the commodity fetishism and single-minded commercialism that we have allowed to dominate us, and the pluralism, heterogeneity and spiritedness that constitute our professed national character?
President Obama certainly inspired many young people to think beyond themselves--beyond careerism and mindless consumerism. But our tendency is to leave the "higher" things to high-minded rhetoric and devote policy to the material. Getting people to understand that happiness cannot be bought, and that consumerism wears out not only the sole and the wallet but the will and the soul--that capitalism cannot survive long-term on credit and consumerism--demands programs and people, not just talk.
The convergence of Obama's election and the collapse of the global credit economy marks a moment when radical change is possible. But we will need the new president's leadership to turn the economic disaster into a cultural and democratic opportunity: to make service as important as selfishness (what about a national service program, universal and mandatory, linked to education?); to render community no less valid than individualism (lost social capital can be re-created through support for civil society); to make the needs of the spirit as worthy of respect as those of the body (assist the arts and don't chase religion out of the public square just because we want it out of City Hall); to make equality as important as individual opportunity ("equal opportunity" talk has become a way to avoid confronting deep structural inequality); to make prudence and modesty values no less commendable than speculation and hubris (saving is not just good economic policy; it's a beneficent frame of mind). Such values are neither conservative nor liberal but are at once cosmopolitan and deeply American. Their restoration could inaugurate a quiet revolution.
The struggle for the soul of capitalism is, then, a struggle between the nation's economic body and its civic soul: a struggle to put capitalism in its proper place, where it serves our nature and needs rather than manipulating and fabricating whims and wants. (Editor's emphasis throughout) Saving capitalism means bringing it into harmony with spirit--with prudence, pluralism and those "things of the public" (res publica) that define our civic souls. A revolution of the spirit.
Is the new president up to it? Are we?
NOTE:
Interestingly, this author has provided--albeit in a secular way--a reasonable description of Roman Catholic Church teaching with respect to Social Justice specifically from the perspective of economics--the need to insure a properly managed type of free market Capitalism--eschewing as it does both unbridled Capitalism and atheistic Communism/Socialism. The current economic disaster in the US is in large part the result of excessive de-regulation of the Banking industry and a failure to properly regulate markets.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Large U.S. Banks on Brink of Insolvency, Experts Say
By Steve Lohr
February 13, 2009, International Herald Tribune -- Some of the large banks in the United States, according to economists and other finance experts, are like dead men walking.
A sober assessment of the growing mountain of losses from bad bets, measured in today's marketplace, would overwhelm the value of the banks' assets, they say. The banks, in their view, are insolvent.
None of the experts' research focuses on individual banks, and there are certainly exceptions among the 50 largest banks in the country. Nor do consumers and businesses need to fret about their deposits, which are insured by the U.S. government. And even banks that might technically be insolvent can continue operating for a long time, and could recover their financial health when the economy improves.
But without a cure for the problem of bad assets, the credit crisis that is dragging down the economy will linger, as banks cannot resume the ample lending needed to restart the wheels of commerce. The answer, say the economists and experts, is a larger, more direct government role than in the Treasury Department's plan outlined this week.
The Treasury program leans heavily on a sketchy public-private investment fund to buy up the troubled mortgage-backed securities held by the banks. Instead, the experts say, the government needs to plunge in, weed out the weakest banks, pour capital into the surviving banks and sell off the bad assets.
It is the basic blueprint that has proved successful, they say, in resolving major financial crises in recent years. Such forceful action was belatedly adopted by the Japanese government from 2001 to 2003, by the Swedish government in 1992 and by Washington in 1987 to 1989 to overcome the savings and loan crisis.
"The historical record shows that you have to do it eventually," said Adam Posen, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Putting it off only brings more troubles and higher costs in the long run."
Of course, the Obama administration's stimulus plan could help to spur economic recovery in a timely manner and the value of the banks' assets could begin to rise.
Absent that, the prescription would not be easy or cheap. Estimates of the capital injection needed in the United States range to $1 trillion and beyond. By contrast, the commitment of taxpayer money is the $350 billion remaining in the financial bailout approved by Congress last fall.
Meanwhile, the loss estimates keep mounting.
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University, has been both pessimistic and prescient about the gathering credit problems. In a new report, Roubini estimates that total losses on loans by American financial firms and the fall in the market value of the assets they hold will reach $3.6 trillion, up from his previous estimate of $2 trillion.
Of the total, he calculates that American banks face half that risk, or $1.8 trillion, with the rest borne by other financial institutions in the United States and abroad.
"The United States banking system is effectively insolvent," Roubini said.
For its part, the banking industry bridles at such broad-brush analysis. The industry defines solvency bank by bank, and uses the value of a bank's assets as they are carried on its books rather than the market prices calculated by economists.
"Our analysis shows that the banks have varying degrees of solvency and does not reveal that any institution is insolvent," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group whose members include the largest banks.
Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, called claims of technical insolvency "speculation by people who have no specific knowledge of bank assets."
Roubini's numbers may be the highest, but many others share his rising sense of alarm. Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, estimates that the United States banks have a capital shortage of $500 billion. "In a more severe recession, it will take $1 trillion or so to properly capitalize the banks," said Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
At the end of January, the IMF raised its estimate of the potential losses from loans and other credit securities originated in the United States to $2.2 trillion, up from $1.4 trillion last October. Over the next two years, the IMF estimated, United States and European banks would need at least $500 billion in new capital, a figure more conservative than those of many economists.
Still, these numbers are all based on estimates of the value of complex mortgage-backed securities in a very uncertain economy. "At this moment, the liabilities they have far exceed their assets," said Posen of the Peterson institute. "They are insolvent."
Yet, as Posen and other economists note, there are crucial issues of timing and market psychology that surround the discussion of bank solvency. If one assumes that current conditions reflect a temporary panic, then the value of the banks' distressed assets could well recover over time. If not, many banks may be permanently impaired.
"We won't know what the losses are on these mortgage-backed securities, and we won't until the housing market stabilizes," said Richard Portes, an economist at the London Business School.
Raghuram Rajan, a professor of finance and an economist at the University of Chicago graduate business school, draws the distinction between "liquidation values" and those of calmer times, or "going concern values." In a troubled time for banks, Rajan said, analysts are constantly scrutinizing current and potential losses at the banks, but that is not the norm.
"If they had to sell these securities today, the losses would be far beyond their capital at this point," he said. "But if the prices of these assets will recover over the next year or so, if they don't have to sell at distress prices, the banks could have a new lease on life by giving them some time."
That sort of breathing room is known as regulatory forbearance, essentially a bet by regulators that time will help heal banking troubles. It has worked before.
In the 1980s, during the height of the Latin American debt crisis, the total risk to the nine money-center banks in New York was estimated at more than three times the capital of those banks. The regulators, analysts say, did not force the banks to value those loans at the fire-sale prices of the moment, helping to avert a disaster in the banking system.
In the current crisis, experts warn, banks need to get rid of bad assets quickly. The Treasury's public-private investment fund is an effort to do that.
But many economists and other finance experts say that the government may soon have to move in and take on troubled assets itself to resolve the credit crisis. Then, they say, the government could have the patience to wait for the economy to improve.
Initially, that would put more taxpayer money on the line, but in the end it might reduce overall losses. That is what happened during the savings and loan crisis, when the troubled assets, mostly real estate, were seized by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a government-owned asset management company, and sold over a few years.
The eventual losses, an estimated $130 billion, were far less than if the hotels, office buildings and residential developments had been sold immediately.
"The taxpayer money would be used to acquire assets, and behind most of those securities are mortgages, houses, and we know they are not worthless," Portes said.
NOTE:
It would appear that a Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) kind of vehicle should be formed which could acquire all of the toxic assets that mega banks have on their books; hoping to sell them later for a higher price--a variation of the original TARP bill which was abandoned by the Bush/Paulson Treasury. This would objectively identify the quantity of total toxic debt involved since at present no one seems to know for certain how much exists--estimated conservatively at several trillion dollars perhaps much more. Nothing positive can be gained for the country by waiting. Further delay only aids the financial elites who still hope to be made all or partially whole despite their poor financial decisions while the masses are made to suffer for their indiscretions.
In addition, a temporary moratorium on housing foreclosures should be strongly considered without any equity for residential housing passing to the federal government or its agents. This would help stop the downward spiral we are currently experiencing.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
February 13, 2009, International Herald Tribune -- Some of the large banks in the United States, according to economists and other finance experts, are like dead men walking.
A sober assessment of the growing mountain of losses from bad bets, measured in today's marketplace, would overwhelm the value of the banks' assets, they say. The banks, in their view, are insolvent.
None of the experts' research focuses on individual banks, and there are certainly exceptions among the 50 largest banks in the country. Nor do consumers and businesses need to fret about their deposits, which are insured by the U.S. government. And even banks that might technically be insolvent can continue operating for a long time, and could recover their financial health when the economy improves.
But without a cure for the problem of bad assets, the credit crisis that is dragging down the economy will linger, as banks cannot resume the ample lending needed to restart the wheels of commerce. The answer, say the economists and experts, is a larger, more direct government role than in the Treasury Department's plan outlined this week.
The Treasury program leans heavily on a sketchy public-private investment fund to buy up the troubled mortgage-backed securities held by the banks. Instead, the experts say, the government needs to plunge in, weed out the weakest banks, pour capital into the surviving banks and sell off the bad assets.
It is the basic blueprint that has proved successful, they say, in resolving major financial crises in recent years. Such forceful action was belatedly adopted by the Japanese government from 2001 to 2003, by the Swedish government in 1992 and by Washington in 1987 to 1989 to overcome the savings and loan crisis.
"The historical record shows that you have to do it eventually," said Adam Posen, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Putting it off only brings more troubles and higher costs in the long run."
Of course, the Obama administration's stimulus plan could help to spur economic recovery in a timely manner and the value of the banks' assets could begin to rise.
Absent that, the prescription would not be easy or cheap. Estimates of the capital injection needed in the United States range to $1 trillion and beyond. By contrast, the commitment of taxpayer money is the $350 billion remaining in the financial bailout approved by Congress last fall.
Meanwhile, the loss estimates keep mounting.
Nouriel Roubini, a professor of economics at the Stern School of Business at New York University, has been both pessimistic and prescient about the gathering credit problems. In a new report, Roubini estimates that total losses on loans by American financial firms and the fall in the market value of the assets they hold will reach $3.6 trillion, up from his previous estimate of $2 trillion.
Of the total, he calculates that American banks face half that risk, or $1.8 trillion, with the rest borne by other financial institutions in the United States and abroad.
"The United States banking system is effectively insolvent," Roubini said.
For its part, the banking industry bridles at such broad-brush analysis. The industry defines solvency bank by bank, and uses the value of a bank's assets as they are carried on its books rather than the market prices calculated by economists.
"Our analysis shows that the banks have varying degrees of solvency and does not reveal that any institution is insolvent," said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group whose members include the largest banks.
Edward Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association, called claims of technical insolvency "speculation by people who have no specific knowledge of bank assets."
Roubini's numbers may be the highest, but many others share his rising sense of alarm. Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, estimates that the United States banks have a capital shortage of $500 billion. "In a more severe recession, it will take $1 trillion or so to properly capitalize the banks," said Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
At the end of January, the IMF raised its estimate of the potential losses from loans and other credit securities originated in the United States to $2.2 trillion, up from $1.4 trillion last October. Over the next two years, the IMF estimated, United States and European banks would need at least $500 billion in new capital, a figure more conservative than those of many economists.
Still, these numbers are all based on estimates of the value of complex mortgage-backed securities in a very uncertain economy. "At this moment, the liabilities they have far exceed their assets," said Posen of the Peterson institute. "They are insolvent."
Yet, as Posen and other economists note, there are crucial issues of timing and market psychology that surround the discussion of bank solvency. If one assumes that current conditions reflect a temporary panic, then the value of the banks' distressed assets could well recover over time. If not, many banks may be permanently impaired.
"We won't know what the losses are on these mortgage-backed securities, and we won't until the housing market stabilizes," said Richard Portes, an economist at the London Business School.
Raghuram Rajan, a professor of finance and an economist at the University of Chicago graduate business school, draws the distinction between "liquidation values" and those of calmer times, or "going concern values." In a troubled time for banks, Rajan said, analysts are constantly scrutinizing current and potential losses at the banks, but that is not the norm.
"If they had to sell these securities today, the losses would be far beyond their capital at this point," he said. "But if the prices of these assets will recover over the next year or so, if they don't have to sell at distress prices, the banks could have a new lease on life by giving them some time."
That sort of breathing room is known as regulatory forbearance, essentially a bet by regulators that time will help heal banking troubles. It has worked before.
In the 1980s, during the height of the Latin American debt crisis, the total risk to the nine money-center banks in New York was estimated at more than three times the capital of those banks. The regulators, analysts say, did not force the banks to value those loans at the fire-sale prices of the moment, helping to avert a disaster in the banking system.
In the current crisis, experts warn, banks need to get rid of bad assets quickly. The Treasury's public-private investment fund is an effort to do that.
But many economists and other finance experts say that the government may soon have to move in and take on troubled assets itself to resolve the credit crisis. Then, they say, the government could have the patience to wait for the economy to improve.
Initially, that would put more taxpayer money on the line, but in the end it might reduce overall losses. That is what happened during the savings and loan crisis, when the troubled assets, mostly real estate, were seized by the Resolution Trust Corporation, a government-owned asset management company, and sold over a few years.
The eventual losses, an estimated $130 billion, were far less than if the hotels, office buildings and residential developments had been sold immediately.
"The taxpayer money would be used to acquire assets, and behind most of those securities are mortgages, houses, and we know they are not worthless," Portes said.
NOTE:
It would appear that a Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) kind of vehicle should be formed which could acquire all of the toxic assets that mega banks have on their books; hoping to sell them later for a higher price--a variation of the original TARP bill which was abandoned by the Bush/Paulson Treasury. This would objectively identify the quantity of total toxic debt involved since at present no one seems to know for certain how much exists--estimated conservatively at several trillion dollars perhaps much more. Nothing positive can be gained for the country by waiting. Further delay only aids the financial elites who still hope to be made all or partially whole despite their poor financial decisions while the masses are made to suffer for their indiscretions.
In addition, a temporary moratorium on housing foreclosures should be strongly considered without any equity for residential housing passing to the federal government or its agents. This would help stop the downward spiral we are currently experiencing.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Israel ready to launch a military offensive against Iran
In the wake of Gaza, can the world afford to live with a nuclear Israel?
By Lech Biegalski
Global Research,
February 14, 2009
On February 14, Australian News Agency “The Age” reported:
A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel's permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.
“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said.
The truth is that, after witnessing Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the world cannot afford to live with nuclear Israel. As opposed to Iran, Israel has secretly developed hundreds of nuclear warheads and delivery weapons outside of any supervision by international community. Iran continues to run its nuclear program in cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
According to the Press TV report of February 13,
The new chief of US intelligence has confirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his organization has assessed that Tehran does not have nuclear weapons design and weaponization work.
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), issued in November 2007 by the sixteen US intelligence agencies, clarified that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The 2007 intelligence report was widely seen as a setback for Bush administration efforts to pressure Iran and halt its nuclear program.
The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out the highest number of inspections in its history on Iranian nuclear sites, has also found nothing to indicate that the program has diverted toward weaponization.
In the meantime, both US and Israeli governments continue to press the issue of suspected development of military nuclear technology in Iran, slapping three rounds of sanctions against Tehran. Israel openly threatens to attack Iran in order to destroy its nuclear and scientific facilities.
The real problem, as we all know by now, is this:
Unlike the US and Israel, Iran has not attacked other countries in recent history. There is enough documented evidence indicating that the US planned the oil wars long ago and that Iran was one of the targets. Strong Iran is also an obstacle for Israeli territorial expansion in Arab countries. In this situation, EVEN IF Iran was trying to develop an effective nuclear deterrence capability IN SELF-DEFENCE, it would be perfectly understandable and perfectly justifiable.
If the US and Israel want other countries to give up their nuclear programs, they should give an example by doing same first. This, however, will not happen because these two “partners” believe that they can unilaterally bully other nations into submission. The clear pattern here is: disarm, so that we can take over your resources and your territories, or else we will attack you!
By the way, nobody has yet explained why “the world cannot live with a nuclear Iran”. The world lives with nuclear America, with nuclear Russia, nuclear China, and India, and Pakistan, and nuclear France, and United Kingdom, with nuclear Israel, and probably a host of other nuclear countries - and nobody threatens a war against them for this reason. Somehow, the world is safer, when countries have nuclear deterrence capabilities. Nobody questions their rights to develop nuclear programs for peaceful or military purposes. So why Iran? I think I have already answered that naive question.
Interestingly, Russia is not using their veto power in the UN Security Council to block the sanctions against Iran. Maybe Russia wants us to step into this mess and stretch ourselves flat? I wouldn't be surprised. Russia is extremely good at diplomacy and at long-term chess games.
Recently,
US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated late Tuesday that the Obama administration might reconsider plans for a missile defense system in Europe, if Iran stops what U.S. officials believe is a drive for nuclear weapons. (Source)
This was a direct ultimatum addressed to Russia. “Help us bully Iran, or we will set up our rockets on your border”. Again, the real question is, “If the European missile defence system is to prevent Iranian nuclear warheads from reaching America, why are they being placed in Poland instead of Germany, the UK or France? Or in Iceland? Or, in Canada?” Obviously, the European missile defence system in Poland threatens Russia and this is why it became a bargaining chip in the geopolitical game for the Middle East and Caucasus. Hillary (who allegedly has an extensive experience in politics) has finally admitted it.
Surely, Mr. Lavrov is working on an appropriate move in response to this “invitation”. Perhaps, the answer should be, “In the spirit of cooperation and pending the UN investigation into Israel's war crimes in Gaza, if the US helps us force Israel to eliminate its nuclear weapons and to accept international inspections of its nuclear facilities, we will help you deal with Iran.”
NOTE:
I disagree with the author's suggestion that nuclear deterrence is something to be attained or that the world is safer when countries have nuclear deterrent capabilities. While some nuclear weapons capable countries "might" conceivably be saved from attack (a debatable point itself), the world in the aggregate experiences increasing risk of annihilation every time an additional nuclear warhead becomes operational. It is clearly immoral to create weapons which are designed to kill hundreds if not millions of innocent people at once. Nor could they ever be utilized in a morally licit and defensive way. The latter is true even for battlefield (tactical) nuclear weapons.
Moreover the idea that these weapons will never be used is not credible. We are fortunate that they were used only twice--tragically by the United States. Our doing so represented crimes against humanity. In the annals of war, no weapon once in existence has ever not been used and that includes nuclear weaponry. In the absence of a credible global nuclear disarmament effort--they will be used again. It is only a matter of time given the fallen nature of human beings--as history amply demonstrates. Nuclear weapons categorically violate the Just War Doctrinal Corpus on multiple accounts.
I do agree that Israel is currently more dangerous to the world than Iran especially in view of the fact that no credible evidence exists that Iran has or is close to developing a nuclear weapon (see the latest relevant NIE for example). Israel is reported to possess several hundred nuclear weapons none of which have ever been inspected by the IAEA or any other credible body. In that regard, Israel has refused to sign the NP--for obvious reasons. Given the crimes against humanity which Israel perpetrated in Lebanon (2007) and in Gaza (12/08) she cannot be trusted with a nuclear capability. In that regard, neither can the United States given our immoral invasion of Iraq.
All the nuclear weapon's states should actively/cooperatively reduce their arsenal's to zero in exchange for the non-nuclear weapon's states continuing to remain non-nuclear as the NPT demands. The United States is a signatory and is currently in violation of the treaty which by the way is also part of US law. This should be widely publicized and debated in the hope of changing national nuclear weapon's policy.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
By Lech Biegalski
Global Research,
February 14, 2009
On February 14, Australian News Agency “The Age” reported:
A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel's permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.
“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said.
The truth is that, after witnessing Israeli war crimes in Lebanon and in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, the world cannot afford to live with nuclear Israel. As opposed to Iran, Israel has secretly developed hundreds of nuclear warheads and delivery weapons outside of any supervision by international community. Iran continues to run its nuclear program in cooperation with the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
According to the Press TV report of February 13,
The new chief of US intelligence has confirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
Dennis Blair told the Senate Intelligence Committee that his organization has assessed that Tehran does not have nuclear weapons design and weaponization work.
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), issued in November 2007 by the sixteen US intelligence agencies, clarified that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
The 2007 intelligence report was widely seen as a setback for Bush administration efforts to pressure Iran and halt its nuclear program.
The UN nuclear watchdog, which has carried out the highest number of inspections in its history on Iranian nuclear sites, has also found nothing to indicate that the program has diverted toward weaponization.
In the meantime, both US and Israeli governments continue to press the issue of suspected development of military nuclear technology in Iran, slapping three rounds of sanctions against Tehran. Israel openly threatens to attack Iran in order to destroy its nuclear and scientific facilities.
The real problem, as we all know by now, is this:
Unlike the US and Israel, Iran has not attacked other countries in recent history. There is enough documented evidence indicating that the US planned the oil wars long ago and that Iran was one of the targets. Strong Iran is also an obstacle for Israeli territorial expansion in Arab countries. In this situation, EVEN IF Iran was trying to develop an effective nuclear deterrence capability IN SELF-DEFENCE, it would be perfectly understandable and perfectly justifiable.
If the US and Israel want other countries to give up their nuclear programs, they should give an example by doing same first. This, however, will not happen because these two “partners” believe that they can unilaterally bully other nations into submission. The clear pattern here is: disarm, so that we can take over your resources and your territories, or else we will attack you!
By the way, nobody has yet explained why “the world cannot live with a nuclear Iran”. The world lives with nuclear America, with nuclear Russia, nuclear China, and India, and Pakistan, and nuclear France, and United Kingdom, with nuclear Israel, and probably a host of other nuclear countries - and nobody threatens a war against them for this reason. Somehow, the world is safer, when countries have nuclear deterrence capabilities. Nobody questions their rights to develop nuclear programs for peaceful or military purposes. So why Iran? I think I have already answered that naive question.
Interestingly, Russia is not using their veto power in the UN Security Council to block the sanctions against Iran. Maybe Russia wants us to step into this mess and stretch ourselves flat? I wouldn't be surprised. Russia is extremely good at diplomacy and at long-term chess games.
Recently,
US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stated late Tuesday that the Obama administration might reconsider plans for a missile defense system in Europe, if Iran stops what U.S. officials believe is a drive for nuclear weapons. (Source)
This was a direct ultimatum addressed to Russia. “Help us bully Iran, or we will set up our rockets on your border”. Again, the real question is, “If the European missile defence system is to prevent Iranian nuclear warheads from reaching America, why are they being placed in Poland instead of Germany, the UK or France? Or in Iceland? Or, in Canada?” Obviously, the European missile defence system in Poland threatens Russia and this is why it became a bargaining chip in the geopolitical game for the Middle East and Caucasus. Hillary (who allegedly has an extensive experience in politics) has finally admitted it.
Surely, Mr. Lavrov is working on an appropriate move in response to this “invitation”. Perhaps, the answer should be, “In the spirit of cooperation and pending the UN investigation into Israel's war crimes in Gaza, if the US helps us force Israel to eliminate its nuclear weapons and to accept international inspections of its nuclear facilities, we will help you deal with Iran.”
NOTE:
I disagree with the author's suggestion that nuclear deterrence is something to be attained or that the world is safer when countries have nuclear deterrent capabilities. While some nuclear weapons capable countries "might" conceivably be saved from attack (a debatable point itself), the world in the aggregate experiences increasing risk of annihilation every time an additional nuclear warhead becomes operational. It is clearly immoral to create weapons which are designed to kill hundreds if not millions of innocent people at once. Nor could they ever be utilized in a morally licit and defensive way. The latter is true even for battlefield (tactical) nuclear weapons.
Moreover the idea that these weapons will never be used is not credible. We are fortunate that they were used only twice--tragically by the United States. Our doing so represented crimes against humanity. In the annals of war, no weapon once in existence has ever not been used and that includes nuclear weaponry. In the absence of a credible global nuclear disarmament effort--they will be used again. It is only a matter of time given the fallen nature of human beings--as history amply demonstrates. Nuclear weapons categorically violate the Just War Doctrinal Corpus on multiple accounts.
I do agree that Israel is currently more dangerous to the world than Iran especially in view of the fact that no credible evidence exists that Iran has or is close to developing a nuclear weapon (see the latest relevant NIE for example). Israel is reported to possess several hundred nuclear weapons none of which have ever been inspected by the IAEA or any other credible body. In that regard, Israel has refused to sign the NP--for obvious reasons. Given the crimes against humanity which Israel perpetrated in Lebanon (2007) and in Gaza (12/08) she cannot be trusted with a nuclear capability. In that regard, neither can the United States given our immoral invasion of Iraq.
All the nuclear weapon's states should actively/cooperatively reduce their arsenal's to zero in exchange for the non-nuclear weapon's states continuing to remain non-nuclear as the NPT demands. The United States is a signatory and is currently in violation of the treaty which by the way is also part of US law. This should be widely publicized and debated in the hope of changing national nuclear weapon's policy.
--Dr. J. P. Hubert
Sunday, February 15, 2009
The Oligarchy's Bailout Ball
You know what they say -- half a million dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to
By Michael Winship
February 14, 2009 "Consortiumnews " -- -- News from the White House that $500,000 was the cap the government wants to put on executive salaries at the banks receiving bailout cash had some on Wall Street and along the plush corridors of Manhattan's swank Upper East Side hollering "Unfair!" (But without those unsightly street demonstrations and picket lines, of course.)
"You Try to Live on 500K in This Town" was the tongue-in-cheek headline in last Sunday's New York Times.
Just add up private school tuition, mortgage payments, maintenance fees and wages for the nanny and you're already up to more than $250,000 a year - and that's pre-taxes, assuming you're paying any. Then tote up payments and upkeep on vacation and weekend homes, charity balls, car and driver - pretty soon you're maxing out your American Express Black Card.
But they work hard for their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, perks and solid gold benefits, complained some of the financiers. Besides, executive headhunters say, the money giants just can't get good help for anything less.
Good help? Spare us the kind of moguls who helped us straight into the current deep, dirty hole we're trying to climb out of.
"Like spoiled, petulant children," is how Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein described them. "These guys won't be happy until the government agrees to relieve them of every last one of their lousy loans and investments at inflated prices, recapitalize every major bank and brokerage and insurance company on sweetheart terms and restore them to the glory days, so they can once again earn inflated profits and obscene pay packages by screwing over their customers and their shareholders."
Pearlstein was reacting after the five percent dive that stock prices took following freshly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's announcement of the Obama Administration's Financial Stability Plan. It's the latest iteration of the bank bailout plan intended to go hand-in-hand with the economic stimulus package. Combined, as much as $3 trillion may be at stake.
The plan immediately was attacked by many as too vague and ineffective. Part of the trouble, critics say, is that Geithner isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem -- former head of the Federal Reserve in New York and a protégé of Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who last month retired as senior counselor at Citigroup.
That's the bank the government agreed to insure against projected losses of $306 billion, on top of bailouts totaling $45 billion. In other words, Geithner's a player.
The New York Times reported that in preparing the Financial Stability Plan, Geithner opposed tougher conditions on investment firms sought by others in the White House.
Geithner, the Times wrote, "successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid... resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives..."
This week, on The Baseline Scenario, a blog he co-founded, MIT professor of global economics and management and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson wrote, "There comes a time in every economic crisis, or more specifically, in every struggle to recover from a crisis, when someone steps up to the podium to promise the policies that -- they say -- will deliver you back to growth.
“The person has political support, a strong track record, and every incentive to enter the history books. But one nagging question remains. Can this person, your new economic strategist, really break with the vested elites that got you into this much trouble?"
That question caught the attention of my colleague Bill Moyers, who interviewed Johnson on the current edition of Bill Moyers Journal on public television.
The problem, Johnson told him, is that via millions spent for political contributions and lobbying efforts, the revolving door that sees elites shuttle between jobs in government and business, and by creating a situation in which technical knowledge is limited to a privileged few, the banking and financial services industry has become a kind of ruling oligarchy that stifles attempts to shake up the status quo and make the real change necessary to get us out of the current crisis.
"Either you break the power," Johnson said, "or we're stuck for a long time with this arrangement...
"The policy that we seem to be pursuing, of being nice to the banks, is a mistake. Both from a technical/economic point of view, and from a deeper political point of view... [The banks] think that we're going to pay out 10 or 20 percent of GDP to basically make them whole. It's astonishing."
Johnson has written on The Baseline Scenario blog what he thinks needs to be done: "Reboot the financial system. Find out immediately which banks are insolvent using market prices. Allow private owners to fully recapitalize, if they can. Have the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, take over all banks that cannot raise enough private capital, and try to re-privatize those banks quickly, while making sure the taxpayer has strong participation in the upside."
Unfortunately, Johnson fears the oligarchy will prevail.
"My intuition is that this is going to get a lot worse," he told Moyers. "It's going to cost us a lot more money. And we are going down a long, dark, blind alley...
"Eventually, of course, the economy will turn around. Things will get better. The banks will be worth a lot of money and they will cash out.... We and our children will be paying higher taxes so those people could have those bonuses. That's not fair. It's not acceptable. It's not even good economics."
Johnson doubts the political will exists to do what needs to be done. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
According to Tuesday's Boston Herald, last August, another former Treasury Secretary and Rubin pal, Lawrence Summers, now chairman of the of the National Economic Council, hitched a ride back from the Democratic National Convention on board a Citigroup corporate jet -- "the same type that... Citigroup infamously wanted to replace last month with a new $50 million French jet."
Summers didn't pay for the trip, but Citi said it has paid the appropriate taxes. The Herald reported that the plane "was the same one former Citi chief executive Sandy Will took on vacation to Mexico last month, it reportedly includes a full bar, crystal stemware and 'pillows made from Hermès scarves.'"
When you've got it, flaunt it, Larry. Why go to hell in a handbasket when you can fly there executive class, leaning back on a French silk pillow? It's good to be part of an oligarchy.
By Michael Winship
February 14, 2009 "Consortiumnews " -- -- News from the White House that $500,000 was the cap the government wants to put on executive salaries at the banks receiving bailout cash had some on Wall Street and along the plush corridors of Manhattan's swank Upper East Side hollering "Unfair!" (But without those unsightly street demonstrations and picket lines, of course.)
"You Try to Live on 500K in This Town" was the tongue-in-cheek headline in last Sunday's New York Times.
Just add up private school tuition, mortgage payments, maintenance fees and wages for the nanny and you're already up to more than $250,000 a year - and that's pre-taxes, assuming you're paying any. Then tote up payments and upkeep on vacation and weekend homes, charity balls, car and driver - pretty soon you're maxing out your American Express Black Card.
But they work hard for their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses, perks and solid gold benefits, complained some of the financiers. Besides, executive headhunters say, the money giants just can't get good help for anything less.
Good help? Spare us the kind of moguls who helped us straight into the current deep, dirty hole we're trying to climb out of.
"Like spoiled, petulant children," is how Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein described them. "These guys won't be happy until the government agrees to relieve them of every last one of their lousy loans and investments at inflated prices, recapitalize every major bank and brokerage and insurance company on sweetheart terms and restore them to the glory days, so they can once again earn inflated profits and obscene pay packages by screwing over their customers and their shareholders."
Pearlstein was reacting after the five percent dive that stock prices took following freshly minted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's announcement of the Obama Administration's Financial Stability Plan. It's the latest iteration of the bank bailout plan intended to go hand-in-hand with the economic stimulus package. Combined, as much as $3 trillion may be at stake.
The plan immediately was attacked by many as too vague and ineffective. Part of the trouble, critics say, is that Geithner isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem -- former head of the Federal Reserve in New York and a protégé of Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who last month retired as senior counselor at Citigroup.
That's the bank the government agreed to insure against projected losses of $306 billion, on top of bailouts totaling $45 billion. In other words, Geithner's a player.
The New York Times reported that in preparing the Financial Stability Plan, Geithner opposed tougher conditions on investment firms sought by others in the White House.
Geithner, the Times wrote, "successfully fought against more severe limits on executive pay for companies receiving government aid... resisted those who wanted to dictate how banks would spend their rescue money. And he prevailed over top administration aides who wanted to replace bank executives..."
This week, on The Baseline Scenario, a blog he co-founded, MIT professor of global economics and management and former International Monetary Fund chief economist Simon Johnson wrote, "There comes a time in every economic crisis, or more specifically, in every struggle to recover from a crisis, when someone steps up to the podium to promise the policies that -- they say -- will deliver you back to growth.
“The person has political support, a strong track record, and every incentive to enter the history books. But one nagging question remains. Can this person, your new economic strategist, really break with the vested elites that got you into this much trouble?"
That question caught the attention of my colleague Bill Moyers, who interviewed Johnson on the current edition of Bill Moyers Journal on public television.
The problem, Johnson told him, is that via millions spent for political contributions and lobbying efforts, the revolving door that sees elites shuttle between jobs in government and business, and by creating a situation in which technical knowledge is limited to a privileged few, the banking and financial services industry has become a kind of ruling oligarchy that stifles attempts to shake up the status quo and make the real change necessary to get us out of the current crisis.
"Either you break the power," Johnson said, "or we're stuck for a long time with this arrangement...
"The policy that we seem to be pursuing, of being nice to the banks, is a mistake. Both from a technical/economic point of view, and from a deeper political point of view... [The banks] think that we're going to pay out 10 or 20 percent of GDP to basically make them whole. It's astonishing."
Johnson has written on The Baseline Scenario blog what he thinks needs to be done: "Reboot the financial system. Find out immediately which banks are insolvent using market prices. Allow private owners to fully recapitalize, if they can. Have the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, take over all banks that cannot raise enough private capital, and try to re-privatize those banks quickly, while making sure the taxpayer has strong participation in the upside."
Unfortunately, Johnson fears the oligarchy will prevail.
"My intuition is that this is going to get a lot worse," he told Moyers. "It's going to cost us a lot more money. And we are going down a long, dark, blind alley...
"Eventually, of course, the economy will turn around. Things will get better. The banks will be worth a lot of money and they will cash out.... We and our children will be paying higher taxes so those people could have those bonuses. That's not fair. It's not acceptable. It's not even good economics."
Johnson doubts the political will exists to do what needs to be done. (Editor's emphasis throughout)
According to Tuesday's Boston Herald, last August, another former Treasury Secretary and Rubin pal, Lawrence Summers, now chairman of the of the National Economic Council, hitched a ride back from the Democratic National Convention on board a Citigroup corporate jet -- "the same type that... Citigroup infamously wanted to replace last month with a new $50 million French jet."
Summers didn't pay for the trip, but Citi said it has paid the appropriate taxes. The Herald reported that the plane "was the same one former Citi chief executive Sandy Will took on vacation to Mexico last month, it reportedly includes a full bar, crystal stemware and 'pillows made from Hermès scarves.'"
When you've got it, flaunt it, Larry. Why go to hell in a handbasket when you can fly there executive class, leaning back on a French silk pillow? It's good to be part of an oligarchy.
Israel’s Rationale for Murder: No One is Innocent
By M. Junaid Levesque-Alam
February 14, 2009 "Dissident Voice"
-- When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.
– Israeli Army Chief of Staff Raphael Eitan, 1983
Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived… We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home.
– Famous Israeli Army Commander Moshe Dayan
Israel’s official excuses for extinguishing over 1,300 Palestinian lives—half of them civilian and one-third of them children— are oft-repeated by its apologists: Hamas’ rocket fire made the invasion unavoidable, and its tactics made civilian casualties inevitable.
Do these positions dovetail with—or decapitate—history? Are they logical? Are they moral? Or are they smokescreens, designed to disguise troublesome facts about both Israel’s strategy and its very origins?
The reality behind the rockets
Israel’s first argument about Hamas’ rockets fails on several levels.
It neatly—and falsely—posits Hamas as the attacker and Israel as the defender. The only problem with this pleasant fiction is that Israel has been expelling, occupying, and imprisoning Palestinians long before Hamas even came into existence.
As Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in January, “Gaza is not a military power that attacked its tiny, peace-loving neighbor, Israel. Gaza is a territory that Israel occupied in 1967, along with the West Bank. Its residents are part of the Palestinian people, which lost its land and its homeland in 1948.”
But how did it “lose” its homeland? After unearthing their country’s declassified archives, honest Israeli scholars have pointed to an Israeli campaign of rape, murder, and ethnic cleansing that entered full swing in 1947. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, said to a colleague shortly after Israel’s expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians, “They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Why indeed? For one country to rain down rockets on another is an unprovoked crime. But for a people without a country to fire rockets on those who forcibly took their country—and who then corralled them into camps, isolated them from the world, and regularly slaughter them with weapons far deadlier than unguided projectiles—is a rather different matter.
Just as we would not begin a 10-minute tape of a batterer abusing his wife at the nine-minute mark where she may have struck back, we cannot skip through decades of Israeli ethnic cleansing, occupation, and bombardment and finger Hamas rocket fire as the starting point.
Quite apart from historical considerations, the invasion cannot be justified by rocket fire because scarcely any rockets were being fired before Israel’s own escalation. According to the Israeli military, in the ceasefire months of July, August, September, and October, the numbers of rockets fired from Gaza were one, eight, one, and two, respectively. Even those few rockets were likely fired by smaller militant groups not under Hamas’ control. In short, Hamas abided by the truce—a fact Israel recognized during those months. On November 5th, Israel itself broke the truce by launching a military operation that killed six Hamas gunmen.
On the moral level, too, the terror Israel unleashed on the Palestinian population is indefensible. A total of 23 Israelis were killed by Palestinian rockets from November 2001 to June 2008, according to a pro-Israel website. During the Gaza “war,” a total of three Israeli civilians were killed by rockets. If Israel’s recent rapid-fire slaughter of 600 civilians is “justified” by rockets that caused the death of a small number of Israeli civilians, then—applying Israel’s own logic—is Hamas not now more “justified” in continuing to launch those rockets than ever before?
How can the Israeli establishment claim the moral high ground if it borrows from the Hamas formula but ups its application of the deadly dosage one-hundred fold?
Blaming the victim
Israel’s apologists would respond here with their second argument: it is not Israel, but Hamas, that is responsible for Israel’s killing.
This, too, is specious.
Perhaps it is quaint to insist on ideas that slip out of fashion at convenient intervals, but it should be an accepted principle that those who do the killing should be held responsible for it. Israel’s partisans insist Israel is an exception (is Israel ever not an exception?) because Hamas “hides among civilians” or “uses civilians as shields” or “fires from civilian areas,” thus absolving the attacker of culpability for civilian deaths.
The force of historical truth again intercedes. The people living in Gaza’s squalid refugee camps are not there by choice or because of Hamas: they are trapped by Israel. Ethnically cleansed when Israel stole their lands in 1948, they fled to the tiny strip, which borders the sea. Then Gaza, too, was captured by Israel in 1967, leaving the people occupied by the Israeli military and surrounded by radical Jewish settlers who took the stolen land.
When this occupation “ended” in 2005 after decades of humiliation, the jailer simply moved from inside to outside the cell to better manage the inmates. Most of the Jewish settlers relocated to more stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank and Israel imposed a full-scale siege on Gaza itself as a form of collective punishment when Gazans elected Hamas, as the alternative choice, Fatah, was hopelessly venal.
The siege destroyed the economy and was never lifted even during the ceasefire. Israel barred Palestinians entry into Israel for employment, closed the sea route, and shut off fuel and food aid at will, inducing widespread suffering in one of the most densely-populated spaces on earth. One Israeli official boasted of the devastating effect in 2006, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Let them suffer, the Israelis said at the time, but do not let them die. That would come later.
Even the Vatican, not often inclined to pro-Muslim utterances, was recently moved to describe Gaza as a “concentration camp.”
Thus while Israel’s apologists argue that Israel should be cleared of responsibility for civilian deaths because Hamas “chose” to engage in “civilian areas”, the truth is that the Palestinians had no choice of any areas—they are trapped within the confines of the cage Israel kicked them into by dint of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and the siege.
Even on the street level, Israel has herded Palestinian civilians for easy killing. Several extended families in one part of Gaza, Zeitoun, tell the same story: soldiers forced family members to congregate in one building, fired at it, and massacred the fleeing inhabitants even as they emerged with white flags in hand. Breaking army orders, one Israeli soldier who was in Zeitoun confessed to a British newspaper that his unit had been instructed to “fire on anything that moves.” The unit was told to “shoot first and ask questions later,” he said.
Israel did not provide Hamas with an empty meadow in Switzerland on which to duel. It did not bestow Hamas with its state-of the-art American weaponry to even the odds. It did not give civilians any exit avenues before, during, or after the “fighting.” It even began its bombardment mid-day when children were out in the open switching classes. Israel, far from concerning itself with the fate of civilians, created a dense killing corridor over a period of decades and took advantage of it.
One can argue that even in the most difficult circumstances, militant groups should do their best to avoid mingling with the civilian population during active fighting. If the majority of Palestinian civilian casualties had occurred because Hamas was grabbing civilians left and right to use as shields, there should be abundant evidence.
But where is this evidence? For all its sophisticated spying equipment, satellites, reconnaissance drones, and cameras, the Israeli government has never produced any compelling proof of such a pattern. In fact, Israel officially banned reporters from even entering Gaza during its operation. Why hide the horrific practices of Hamas from the world’s eyes?
The answer, of course, is that Israel was hiding its own horrors instead. In the few cases where this was not possible—where international institutions, such as the UN, independent relief agencies, and Reuters reporters, were involved—a pattern of a different kind emerged: Israel blew up civilians and civilian supplies, agency officials decried the attack, and Israel accused Hamas of having fired from nearby. Each time, agency representatives emphatically stated that Hamas was not operating in the area and demanded proof of Israel’s claims. None was ever forthcoming.
Only in one case—the killing of 40 civilians taking shelter at a UN building—did Israel confidently claim that it had proof of Hamas fighters firing rockets nearby. But the Israeli military soon changed its story and was forced to invent a new excuse.
As if that weren’t enough, it turns out that Israel itself repeatedly used Palestinian civilians as human shields.
Even in these specific cases where Israel should have exercised restraint for sheer public-relations purposes, it displayed absolutely none. Such is the arrogance afforded overwhelming power. We can only imagine under what cruel circumstances most Palestinians, far removed from international institutions or Western journalists, were ground to dust.
This combination of history and ground reality demolishes the credibility of Israel’s excuse. For a bully to blame the victim is one thing—commonplace, even, among colonizers. But for Israel to expel its victims from their homes, force them into inhuman camps, and then fault them for dying en masse when Israel decided to kill them in a cramped cage of its own design—this is a truly novel achievement in the sphere of cruelty.
Israel is therefore no less responsible for killing civilians than slaughterhouse machinery is responsible for processing cattle.
Killing civilians as a strategy
The mountain of excuses offered by Israel strikes the honest observer as too tortuous to trek and too steep to scale. Puzzling and poring over its rationalizations is an endeavor that yields diminishing returns.
It is time to consider an obvious alternative to the official line: Israel did not “accidentally” kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians while “targeting” Hamas for launching aimless rockets. Rather, Israel purposely targeted all Palestinians because it wanted to teach them a severe lesson for not being defeated after 60 years of ongoing brutalization. The pile of civilian corpses produced by the invasion was not accidental—it was integral—to the administration of this lesson.
Advocating and applauding this approach last month was Thomas Friedman, who occasionally comments on Middle East affairs to puff and pout on Israel’s behalf from his privileged perch.
Responding to the growing perception that Israel’s stated aim of destroying Hamas outright was not feasible, Friedman defended Israel’s Gaza strategy in a January 14th New York Times column by approvingly pointing to the example of Lebanon.
In Friedman’s view, the 2006 Lebanon campaign, during which Israel killed about 1,000 Lebanese civilians and 250 Hezbollah fighters, convinced Hezbollah that trading blows with Israel was a bad idea.
To dismantle Friedman’s fantasies about Lebanon—what he smugly calls “the education of Hezbollah”—would require another article. What is important for our purposes is to see how this “education” was carried out.
Hezbollah, Friedman asserts, “challenged Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters.” These civilians, he continues, were “intertwined” with Hezbollah, and were also, by the way, “the families and employers of the militants.”
Translation: the guilty mingled with the innocent and the innocent were practically guilty.
Therefore, concludes Friedman, “the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians…” Israel was forced to inflict “substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large” in order to faze Hezbollah.
Translation: the only thing Israel could do—“it was not pretty, but it was logical”, Friedman avers—was to strike at civilian populations and buildings in order to teach those Arabs a lesson (“educate”) about the consequences of raising their heads.
This refreshing way of thinking neatly solves any moral problems Israel’s actions might pose.
The innocent, as we have seen, were not really innocent: they were somehow related to the militants or related to someone who might have employed militants at the local bakery. Therefore, it was permissible to kill women and children as part of a careful calculation to inflict “enough pain” and make militants think twice about future resistance.
Yes, the “education” of the Arabs is not “pretty”—but who said tuition was free?
That Israel intentionally terrorizes and kills civilians should not surprise honest observers. Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council, bluntly stated what Friedman, with his penchant for unctuous prose, could not bring himself to openly say about the 2006 war:
“The only good thing that happened in the last war was the relative damage caused to Lebanon’s population…The destruction of thousands of homes of ‘innocents’ preserved some of Israel’s deterrent power. The only way to prevent another war is to make it clear that should one break out, Lebanon may be razed to the ground.”
Can any honest person describe Eiland’s logic of mass terror as “self-defense?”
That this logic was also applied in Gaza was confirmed by the news side of the New York Times. In an elliptical January 18th analysis, Times’ correspondent Ethan Bronner, a pro-Israel journalist, writes about Hamas’ tactical caution during the fighting:
“The caution is at least in part because Hamas wants to keep ruling in Gaza, not return to its previous role as a pure resistance movement. Therefore, Israeli officials say, an offensive that caused average people to suffer put pressure on Hamas in real and specific ways.”
This can easily be rephrased as, “Israeli officials launched an offensive that caused average people to suffer in order to put pressure on Hamas in real and specific ways.” Friedman’s prayers were answered—and Eiland’s ideology, implemented.
The Times also quotes an anonymous top Israeli military official as saying, “Hamas is the dominant organization in Gaza. They are the regime and feel very connected to the people. They do not want to lose that connection to the people.”
How does one make Hamas lose “that connection to the people” in an offensive that “caused average people to suffer?” The question answers itself: kill the people.
Bronner writes that the logic behind the punishing offensive is popularly referred to within Israel as the Hebrew equivalent of “the boss has lost it”—a kind of “calculated rage” that “evokes the image of a madman who cannot be controlled.”
It is an “image” that long ago consumed Israel proper.
A madman is by definition someone who has gone insane. Israel is a state founded on ethnic cleansing—a massive attack on civilians. Instead of confronting its original sin, it has simply repeated the same crime in various ways, each time believing that it will crush the Palestinians once and for all. Repeating the same action over and over again while expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.
The reality of a “madman who cannot be controlled” is a traumatic one. The madman declares civilians and combatants alike guilty and subjects them all to “education” through indiscriminate killing. Though the madman arrogates the right to determine the guilt of others for acts that are both in response to and dwarfed by his own far greater atrocities, the madman himself goes unquestioned. Like a convicted batterer presiding over the trial and sentencing of his victims, the Israeli “madman” judges and punishes the very people it has brutalized and dispossessed.(editor's emphasis throughout)
Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude of allowing Israel to rain down its “calculated rage” on Palestinians is applauded not only by the Israeli military and Times newspaper columnists, but also by many American liberals, whose moral senses are conveniently swallowed up by the same serpent that slips away with their spines whenever the subject of the Israeli settler-state presents itself.
Who, then, will stand up for the Palestinians? Who will control the madman?
February 14, 2009 "Dissident Voice"
-- When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.
– Israeli Army Chief of Staff Raphael Eitan, 1983
Before [the Palestinians] very eyes we are possessing the land and the villages where they, and their ancestors, have lived… We are the generation of colonizers, and without the steel helmet and the gun barrel we cannot plant a tree and build a home.
– Famous Israeli Army Commander Moshe Dayan
Israel’s official excuses for extinguishing over 1,300 Palestinian lives—half of them civilian and one-third of them children— are oft-repeated by its apologists: Hamas’ rocket fire made the invasion unavoidable, and its tactics made civilian casualties inevitable.
Do these positions dovetail with—or decapitate—history? Are they logical? Are they moral? Or are they smokescreens, designed to disguise troublesome facts about both Israel’s strategy and its very origins?
The reality behind the rockets
Israel’s first argument about Hamas’ rockets fails on several levels.
It neatly—and falsely—posits Hamas as the attacker and Israel as the defender. The only problem with this pleasant fiction is that Israel has been expelling, occupying, and imprisoning Palestinians long before Hamas even came into existence.
As Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in January, “Gaza is not a military power that attacked its tiny, peace-loving neighbor, Israel. Gaza is a territory that Israel occupied in 1967, along with the West Bank. Its residents are part of the Palestinian people, which lost its land and its homeland in 1948.”
But how did it “lose” its homeland? After unearthing their country’s declassified archives, honest Israeli scholars have pointed to an Israeli campaign of rape, murder, and ethnic cleansing that entered full swing in 1947. Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, said to a colleague shortly after Israel’s expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians, “They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Why indeed? For one country to rain down rockets on another is an unprovoked crime. But for a people without a country to fire rockets on those who forcibly took their country—and who then corralled them into camps, isolated them from the world, and regularly slaughter them with weapons far deadlier than unguided projectiles—is a rather different matter.
Just as we would not begin a 10-minute tape of a batterer abusing his wife at the nine-minute mark where she may have struck back, we cannot skip through decades of Israeli ethnic cleansing, occupation, and bombardment and finger Hamas rocket fire as the starting point.
Quite apart from historical considerations, the invasion cannot be justified by rocket fire because scarcely any rockets were being fired before Israel’s own escalation. According to the Israeli military, in the ceasefire months of July, August, September, and October, the numbers of rockets fired from Gaza were one, eight, one, and two, respectively. Even those few rockets were likely fired by smaller militant groups not under Hamas’ control. In short, Hamas abided by the truce—a fact Israel recognized during those months. On November 5th, Israel itself broke the truce by launching a military operation that killed six Hamas gunmen.
On the moral level, too, the terror Israel unleashed on the Palestinian population is indefensible. A total of 23 Israelis were killed by Palestinian rockets from November 2001 to June 2008, according to a pro-Israel website. During the Gaza “war,” a total of three Israeli civilians were killed by rockets. If Israel’s recent rapid-fire slaughter of 600 civilians is “justified” by rockets that caused the death of a small number of Israeli civilians, then—applying Israel’s own logic—is Hamas not now more “justified” in continuing to launch those rockets than ever before?
How can the Israeli establishment claim the moral high ground if it borrows from the Hamas formula but ups its application of the deadly dosage one-hundred fold?
Blaming the victim
Israel’s apologists would respond here with their second argument: it is not Israel, but Hamas, that is responsible for Israel’s killing.
This, too, is specious.
Perhaps it is quaint to insist on ideas that slip out of fashion at convenient intervals, but it should be an accepted principle that those who do the killing should be held responsible for it. Israel’s partisans insist Israel is an exception (is Israel ever not an exception?) because Hamas “hides among civilians” or “uses civilians as shields” or “fires from civilian areas,” thus absolving the attacker of culpability for civilian deaths.
The force of historical truth again intercedes. The people living in Gaza’s squalid refugee camps are not there by choice or because of Hamas: they are trapped by Israel. Ethnically cleansed when Israel stole their lands in 1948, they fled to the tiny strip, which borders the sea. Then Gaza, too, was captured by Israel in 1967, leaving the people occupied by the Israeli military and surrounded by radical Jewish settlers who took the stolen land.
When this occupation “ended” in 2005 after decades of humiliation, the jailer simply moved from inside to outside the cell to better manage the inmates. Most of the Jewish settlers relocated to more stolen Palestinian land in the West Bank and Israel imposed a full-scale siege on Gaza itself as a form of collective punishment when Gazans elected Hamas, as the alternative choice, Fatah, was hopelessly venal.
The siege destroyed the economy and was never lifted even during the ceasefire. Israel barred Palestinians entry into Israel for employment, closed the sea route, and shut off fuel and food aid at will, inducing widespread suffering in one of the most densely-populated spaces on earth. One Israeli official boasted of the devastating effect in 2006, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” Let them suffer, the Israelis said at the time, but do not let them die. That would come later.
Even the Vatican, not often inclined to pro-Muslim utterances, was recently moved to describe Gaza as a “concentration camp.”
Thus while Israel’s apologists argue that Israel should be cleared of responsibility for civilian deaths because Hamas “chose” to engage in “civilian areas”, the truth is that the Palestinians had no choice of any areas—they are trapped within the confines of the cage Israel kicked them into by dint of ethnic cleansing, occupation, and the siege.
Even on the street level, Israel has herded Palestinian civilians for easy killing. Several extended families in one part of Gaza, Zeitoun, tell the same story: soldiers forced family members to congregate in one building, fired at it, and massacred the fleeing inhabitants even as they emerged with white flags in hand. Breaking army orders, one Israeli soldier who was in Zeitoun confessed to a British newspaper that his unit had been instructed to “fire on anything that moves.” The unit was told to “shoot first and ask questions later,” he said.
Israel did not provide Hamas with an empty meadow in Switzerland on which to duel. It did not bestow Hamas with its state-of the-art American weaponry to even the odds. It did not give civilians any exit avenues before, during, or after the “fighting.” It even began its bombardment mid-day when children were out in the open switching classes. Israel, far from concerning itself with the fate of civilians, created a dense killing corridor over a period of decades and took advantage of it.
One can argue that even in the most difficult circumstances, militant groups should do their best to avoid mingling with the civilian population during active fighting. If the majority of Palestinian civilian casualties had occurred because Hamas was grabbing civilians left and right to use as shields, there should be abundant evidence.
But where is this evidence? For all its sophisticated spying equipment, satellites, reconnaissance drones, and cameras, the Israeli government has never produced any compelling proof of such a pattern. In fact, Israel officially banned reporters from even entering Gaza during its operation. Why hide the horrific practices of Hamas from the world’s eyes?
The answer, of course, is that Israel was hiding its own horrors instead. In the few cases where this was not possible—where international institutions, such as the UN, independent relief agencies, and Reuters reporters, were involved—a pattern of a different kind emerged: Israel blew up civilians and civilian supplies, agency officials decried the attack, and Israel accused Hamas of having fired from nearby. Each time, agency representatives emphatically stated that Hamas was not operating in the area and demanded proof of Israel’s claims. None was ever forthcoming.
Only in one case—the killing of 40 civilians taking shelter at a UN building—did Israel confidently claim that it had proof of Hamas fighters firing rockets nearby. But the Israeli military soon changed its story and was forced to invent a new excuse.
As if that weren’t enough, it turns out that Israel itself repeatedly used Palestinian civilians as human shields.
Even in these specific cases where Israel should have exercised restraint for sheer public-relations purposes, it displayed absolutely none. Such is the arrogance afforded overwhelming power. We can only imagine under what cruel circumstances most Palestinians, far removed from international institutions or Western journalists, were ground to dust.
This combination of history and ground reality demolishes the credibility of Israel’s excuse. For a bully to blame the victim is one thing—commonplace, even, among colonizers. But for Israel to expel its victims from their homes, force them into inhuman camps, and then fault them for dying en masse when Israel decided to kill them in a cramped cage of its own design—this is a truly novel achievement in the sphere of cruelty.
Israel is therefore no less responsible for killing civilians than slaughterhouse machinery is responsible for processing cattle.
Killing civilians as a strategy
The mountain of excuses offered by Israel strikes the honest observer as too tortuous to trek and too steep to scale. Puzzling and poring over its rationalizations is an endeavor that yields diminishing returns.
It is time to consider an obvious alternative to the official line: Israel did not “accidentally” kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians while “targeting” Hamas for launching aimless rockets. Rather, Israel purposely targeted all Palestinians because it wanted to teach them a severe lesson for not being defeated after 60 years of ongoing brutalization. The pile of civilian corpses produced by the invasion was not accidental—it was integral—to the administration of this lesson.
Advocating and applauding this approach last month was Thomas Friedman, who occasionally comments on Middle East affairs to puff and pout on Israel’s behalf from his privileged perch.
Responding to the growing perception that Israel’s stated aim of destroying Hamas outright was not feasible, Friedman defended Israel’s Gaza strategy in a January 14th New York Times column by approvingly pointing to the example of Lebanon.
In Friedman’s view, the 2006 Lebanon campaign, during which Israel killed about 1,000 Lebanese civilians and 250 Hezbollah fighters, convinced Hezbollah that trading blows with Israel was a bad idea.
To dismantle Friedman’s fantasies about Lebanon—what he smugly calls “the education of Hezbollah”—would require another article. What is important for our purposes is to see how this “education” was carried out.
Hezbollah, Friedman asserts, “challenged Israel to inflict massive civilian casualties in order to hit Hezbollah fighters.” These civilians, he continues, were “intertwined” with Hezbollah, and were also, by the way, “the families and employers of the militants.”
Translation: the guilty mingled with the innocent and the innocent were practically guilty.
Therefore, concludes Friedman, “the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians…” Israel was forced to inflict “substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large” in order to faze Hezbollah.
Translation: the only thing Israel could do—“it was not pretty, but it was logical”, Friedman avers—was to strike at civilian populations and buildings in order to teach those Arabs a lesson (“educate”) about the consequences of raising their heads.
This refreshing way of thinking neatly solves any moral problems Israel’s actions might pose.
The innocent, as we have seen, were not really innocent: they were somehow related to the militants or related to someone who might have employed militants at the local bakery. Therefore, it was permissible to kill women and children as part of a careful calculation to inflict “enough pain” and make militants think twice about future resistance.
Yes, the “education” of the Arabs is not “pretty”—but who said tuition was free?
That Israel intentionally terrorizes and kills civilians should not surprise honest observers. Giora Eiland, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council, bluntly stated what Friedman, with his penchant for unctuous prose, could not bring himself to openly say about the 2006 war:
“The only good thing that happened in the last war was the relative damage caused to Lebanon’s population…The destruction of thousands of homes of ‘innocents’ preserved some of Israel’s deterrent power. The only way to prevent another war is to make it clear that should one break out, Lebanon may be razed to the ground.”
Can any honest person describe Eiland’s logic of mass terror as “self-defense?”
That this logic was also applied in Gaza was confirmed by the news side of the New York Times. In an elliptical January 18th analysis, Times’ correspondent Ethan Bronner, a pro-Israel journalist, writes about Hamas’ tactical caution during the fighting:
“The caution is at least in part because Hamas wants to keep ruling in Gaza, not return to its previous role as a pure resistance movement. Therefore, Israeli officials say, an offensive that caused average people to suffer put pressure on Hamas in real and specific ways.”
This can easily be rephrased as, “Israeli officials launched an offensive that caused average people to suffer in order to put pressure on Hamas in real and specific ways.” Friedman’s prayers were answered—and Eiland’s ideology, implemented.
The Times also quotes an anonymous top Israeli military official as saying, “Hamas is the dominant organization in Gaza. They are the regime and feel very connected to the people. They do not want to lose that connection to the people.”
How does one make Hamas lose “that connection to the people” in an offensive that “caused average people to suffer?” The question answers itself: kill the people.
Bronner writes that the logic behind the punishing offensive is popularly referred to within Israel as the Hebrew equivalent of “the boss has lost it”—a kind of “calculated rage” that “evokes the image of a madman who cannot be controlled.”
It is an “image” that long ago consumed Israel proper.
A madman is by definition someone who has gone insane. Israel is a state founded on ethnic cleansing—a massive attack on civilians. Instead of confronting its original sin, it has simply repeated the same crime in various ways, each time believing that it will crush the Palestinians once and for all. Repeating the same action over and over again while expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity.
The reality of a “madman who cannot be controlled” is a traumatic one. The madman declares civilians and combatants alike guilty and subjects them all to “education” through indiscriminate killing. Though the madman arrogates the right to determine the guilt of others for acts that are both in response to and dwarfed by his own far greater atrocities, the madman himself goes unquestioned. Like a convicted batterer presiding over the trial and sentencing of his victims, the Israeli “madman” judges and punishes the very people it has brutalized and dispossessed.(editor's emphasis throughout)
Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude of allowing Israel to rain down its “calculated rage” on Palestinians is applauded not only by the Israeli military and Times newspaper columnists, but also by many American liberals, whose moral senses are conveniently swallowed up by the same serpent that slips away with their spines whenever the subject of the Israeli settler-state presents itself.
Who, then, will stand up for the Palestinians? Who will control the madman?
Monday, February 9, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
This just in: Israel is indeed our 51st State!
By Melissa Rossi
February 07, 2009 "Huffington Post" -- I'd thought it would just be a breezy Friday afternoon, when I clicked on today's post of M.J. Rosenberg, here on Huffington Post.
Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum, Mr. Rosenberg's blog entry concerns the upcoming Israeli election -- and he tells us the outcome is "really not our business." After all, he blithely notes, "As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel."
There weren't comments when I started reading -- but by the time I read through his post and hit the reply button, there were already five comments and more pending. All of them saying the same thing -- no, Mr. Rosenberg -- our job is to promote policies that are best for America. PERIOD.
I am truly alarmed at the idea that Israel is indeed our 51st state -- falling, apparently between Indiana and Kansas -- but this idea is fairly entrenched in US foreign policy. After all, unbeknownst to most Americans, Israel -- an affluent country -- receives more US foreign aid than ANY other country in the world -- and the bulk of it goes for arms, a result of the 1979 Camp David Agreement that brought Israeli-Egyptian peace, as I note in this entry.
Thus, everytime Israel makes a military move, it reflects on the US -- since they're using our freebie arms, as I note here.
The neocons who dominated both the Bush administrations, son's and father's, adopted the idea that what's good for Israel is good for the US, and there are those that argue that in fact our 2003 march into Iraq was more about conquering a threat to Israel than destroying a threat to the US.
And certainly, if Israel makes a move on Iran -- which remains a distinct possibility whoever wins the election -- and perhaps even before, as I discuss here -- it will not only reflect on the US yet again, it may pull us directly or indirectly into the ugliest war we've yet seen in the Middle East.
So, sorry, Mr. Rosenberg, it is our business who wins the elections in Israel -- nevertheless, Israel is not our latest state. And Mr. Rosenberg, I will be happy to debate you on this issue is any forum you name.
-- Melissa Rossi is the author of What Every American Should Know about the Middle East
February 07, 2009 "Huffington Post" -- I'd thought it would just be a breezy Friday afternoon, when I clicked on today's post of M.J. Rosenberg, here on Huffington Post.
Director of Policy for the Israel Policy Forum, Mr. Rosenberg's blog entry concerns the upcoming Israeli election -- and he tells us the outcome is "really not our business." After all, he blithely notes, "As Americans, our job is to promote policies that are best for America, and for Israel."
There weren't comments when I started reading -- but by the time I read through his post and hit the reply button, there were already five comments and more pending. All of them saying the same thing -- no, Mr. Rosenberg -- our job is to promote policies that are best for America. PERIOD.
I am truly alarmed at the idea that Israel is indeed our 51st state -- falling, apparently between Indiana and Kansas -- but this idea is fairly entrenched in US foreign policy. After all, unbeknownst to most Americans, Israel -- an affluent country -- receives more US foreign aid than ANY other country in the world -- and the bulk of it goes for arms, a result of the 1979 Camp David Agreement that brought Israeli-Egyptian peace, as I note in this entry.
Thus, everytime Israel makes a military move, it reflects on the US -- since they're using our freebie arms, as I note here.
The neocons who dominated both the Bush administrations, son's and father's, adopted the idea that what's good for Israel is good for the US, and there are those that argue that in fact our 2003 march into Iraq was more about conquering a threat to Israel than destroying a threat to the US.
And certainly, if Israel makes a move on Iran -- which remains a distinct possibility whoever wins the election -- and perhaps even before, as I discuss here -- it will not only reflect on the US yet again, it may pull us directly or indirectly into the ugliest war we've yet seen in the Middle East.
So, sorry, Mr. Rosenberg, it is our business who wins the elections in Israel -- nevertheless, Israel is not our latest state. And Mr. Rosenberg, I will be happy to debate you on this issue is any forum you name.
-- Melissa Rossi is the author of What Every American Should Know about the Middle East
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)