Bush's Critics Debate Decision for War: Choice or Necessity? Elective or Necessary? Just or Unjust? Wise or Unwise?

Feb. 10, 2004 : PoliSat .Com's Political Satire/ Commentary* Daily Update # 02·· ™©·2004·(Home)·
*Where the satire is always commentary, but the commentary isn't always satire (but you'll know the difference)·
(Permanent, direct link to this Daily Update: http://polisat.com/du2004/du040229.htm#20040210-02.)
(Keep abreast of PoliSat.Com's Daily Political Satire/Commentary via Google's News Alert).·

Bush's Critics Debate Decision for War: Choice or Necessity? Elective or Necessary? Just or Unjust? Wise or Unwise?·

It appears that John Kerry and one of his most ardent supporters, Max Cleland, have necessarily elected to predicate Kerry's chances for victory in a campaign against George W. Bush upon their contention that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "elective" war rather than a "necessary" war and/or that it was a war "of choice" rather than a war "of necessity." Notwithstanding such argument's attempt to imply to the contrary, the terms "necessary" and "necessity" are relative terms rather than absolute ones. The terms "necessary" and "necessity" are virtually meaningless unless one has first answered the question "necessary or necessity for what?"

Did Saddam Hussein's 1991 invasion of Kuwait pose an "imminent threat" to the United States? Virtually no one suggested that it did. Rather than characterizing Operation Desert Storm as being "necessary" to protect the United States against an "imminent threat," Bush 41 (and the U.N. and the countries that joined, or supported, that war) characterized it as "necessary": (a) to uphold provisions of the U.N. Charter against unprovoked invasion of one country by another; (b) to "prevent" the increasing dangers posed by Saddam Hussein's regime from ultimately maturing into what could, and presumably would, pose an "imminent" threat to other countries in the region; (c) to "deter" Saddam Hussein and other dictators with comparable ambitions from unprovoked attack upon, or invasion of, another country. Bush 41 and a not-overwhelming majority of American political leaders (and some, but not most, of the other countries supporting the war) also characterized that war as being (d) "necessary" to prevent the growing danger embodied in Saddam Hussein's regime from ultimately maturing into dangers that could, and presumably would, pose an "imminent threat" to the United States.

At that time, when history demanded that American political leaders approve, or disapprove, the initiation of that war, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and a substantial number of like-minded Democrats (and a few like-minded Republicans) opposed that war. What would the world resemble today if Bush 41 and a majority of American political leaders were to have agreed with Kerry, Kennedy, et al?

We know, of course, that Kuwait would have become "the nineteenth province of Iraq." Would Iraq now be occupying the United States? Of course not. Would Iraq now be occupying most of Europe? Of course not. Would Iraq now be occupying Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Iran? Probably not. Would Iraq now be effectively controlling virtually all of the revenue from Middle-East oil? Absolutely! Would control of such massive amounts of revenue (by direct "ownership" or extortion) have enabled Saddam Hussein to build a gold-plated military armed to the teeth with weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons)? Absolutely!

Would such power in the hands of a sociopathic tyrant such as Hussein have posed an "imminent" threat to the United States? Absolutely, just as did the Soviet power during the entirety of the Cold War. Would Saddam Hussein have burdened himself with moral restraints on his power as did many post-Stalinist leaders of the Soviet Union or would he have wielded his power as did his idol, Stalin, with utter ruthlessness unrestrained whatsoever by moral standards embraced by most civilized nations? Would our own military power's deterrent effects, which we now know (after the fact) succeeded in keeping the nearly 40-years of Cold War from becoming World War III, be great enough to deter militaristic adventures by a sociopathic tyrant such as Hussein undisciplined by moral restraints, democratic forces or human-rights values? Probably not. Would there be dramatically less freedom in the world today? Absolutely! Would our national interests, international interest and foreign policy be hostage to the need to avoid confrontations that might prompt the sociopathic Hussein to recklessly follow a path of confrontation likely to result in a mini-World-War-III or even a full-blown one? Somewhere between "possibly" and "probably."

Necessity of Choice or Choice of Necessity? Electively Necessary or Necessarily Elective?·

Was Operation Desert Storm a "necessary" war or was it an "elective" war. It was "elective" if the value chosen is to maximize long-term risks to the national security of the United States. It was "necessary" if the value chosen is to minimize long-term risks to our national security, or, stated conversely, to minimize the dangers that would be maximized absent waging such war. Did the advent of 9-11 make it prudent for us to cease applying a Cold War strategy of "deterrence" to dangers posed by the nexus of interests between terrorists and sociopathic tyrants possessing, or having access to, or having the means to produce tactical quantities of, weapons of mass destruction for mutually beneficial use by such terrorists and sociopathic leaders with otherwise mutually antipathetic interests? Absolutely. Was/is Operation Iraqi Freedom "necessary"? Unequivocally, yes.

Donate your frequent-flier miles to military personnel to return home from port of reentry on leave: www.HeroMiles.Org.

·support our troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan, Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com , PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom , FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·

First Things First: Salute America's Heroes · Fallen Heroes Fund · Frequent-Flyer-Miles for Troops · Thanks to Troops · Military News ·· MilBlogs ·

Home · Posts: Current /Recent · Videos/Toons/Songs: Latest · Embed-Codes · Text Index · Images Index · Archives: Old · New · About · Contact · Syndication · Affiliates ·

News Sources/Papers/Magazines Pundits Blogs ThinkTanks What is "property"? Pantheopians Global Climate Asteroids/Comets Hitting Earth--Risks/Predictions Science GlobalWeb