Beating the War Drums in the House

"Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerer of death's construction "  

Black Sabbath, War Pigs

     

      Yesterday, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013. While the neo-con controlled House rejected the Smith and Amash Amendment, effectively endorsing indefinite detention of American citizens under the 2012 NDAA, they were also passing a bill  that urges our armed forces to prepare for another war. Another resolution which is still in committee, HR 538, allows for the U.S. to lower the threshold for war.

     Ron Paul came out in opposition of HR 538 yesterday. He opined that this resolution

states that the House "rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran." To Paul, this resolution" makes it very clear that the intent of the House is to authorize force against Iran not if it acquires a nuclear weapon, but if it has a "capability" to acquire them some time in the future." The definition of capability is left wide open, which allows a loose interpretation. 

     H.R. 4310, or the NDAA 2013, makes no bones about the fact that we are authorizing the use of military force against Iran. Section 1221, the Declaration of Policy, parts 7-9, lay it out on the table: 

(7) In order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the United States, in cooperation with its allies, must utilize all elements of national power including diplomacy, robust economic sanctions, and credible, visible preparations for a military option.

(8) Nevertheless, to date, diplomatic overtures, sanctions, and other non-kinetic actions toward Iran have not caused the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

(9) With the impact of additional sanctions uncertain, additional pressure on the Government of Iran could come from the credible threat of military action against Iran’s nuclear program.

(b) Declaration of Policy- It shall be the policy of the United States to take all necessary measures, including military action if required, to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, or Iran’s neighbors with a nuclear weapon.

  

     We have been threatening Iran, sanctioning them, and isolating them for the last thirty years.  According to our government, these "diplomatic" policies are not working, if you can call it that. I believe the definition of diplomacy includes "handling affairs without arousing hostility." I really don't see that the use of force through economic sanctions makes any friends, but there's more.

     Sec. 1222 deals with United States Military Preparedness in the Middle East. The "Plan" outlines what we are prepared to do to enforce our new policy. I'll pick a couple out here and you can draw your own conclusions:

(A) pre-positioning sufficient supplies of aircraft, munitions, fuel, and other materials for both air- and sea-based missions at key forward locations in the Middle East and Indian Ocean;

(B) maintaining sufficient naval assets in the region necessary to signal United States resolve and to bolster United States capabilities to launch a sustained sea and air campaign against a range of Iranian nuclear and military targets, to protect seaborne shipping, and to deny Iranian retaliation against United States interests in the region;

(D) conducting naval fleet exercises similar to the United States Fifth Fleet’s major exercise in the region in March 2007 to demonstrate ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and to counter the use of anti-ship missiles and swarming high-speed boats.

    Rather than learning from the mistakes we made with Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems that the Republicans are ready to jump feet first into Iran, even though Israeli intelligence believes that Iran would not pose a threat to Israel and may be seeking nuclear "capability" simply to protect themselves from U.S. occupation and intervention. We have been systematically occupying Middle Eastern countries and controlling interests since the early 20th century.  Iran's nuclear program seems to be our straw man.

      "War pigs" were used in ancient warfare as a countermeasure against war elephants. The Romans employed squealing pigs to repel the elephants of Pyrrhus in 275 B.C.E. There have been historical accounts of the use of pigs, dipped in pitch and set aflame,as a method of repelling war elephants as well. The elephants were frightened, and would bolt in terror.

     Like the ancient elephants "scared by the smallest squeal of a hog", the Republican-dominated house is preparing to repel the war pigs. However, the elephants of history often bolted and killed their own soldiers. We can only hope that ours don't do the same. 

  

   "All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it." ~Alexis de Tocqueville

 

(Read the text of HR 4310 at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text)

 (Read more of Paul's statement at http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/05/17/dangerous-legislation/)
 <a href="http://www.hypersmash.com">www.Hypersmash.com</a>