Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion – Part 8
It is impossible to question the motives of one’s country during a time of war without being branded as unpatriotic, or even worse—a traitor. The slightest criticism of President George Bush’s actions, immediately after the attacks of September 11th, provoked charges of disloyalty and anti-Americanism. Yet, ironically, it was the somnambulant backing of a nation that was under the influence of excessive patriotism that pushed the United States unnecessarily into Iraq. Also, America’s unquestioned support for President Bush’s War on Terror permitted him to authorize illegal, unwarranted wire taps on American citizens with impunity. And in perhaps the most breathtaking departure from the guarantee of Constitutional protection, Americans woke one morning to the USA Patriot Act. (See endnote for a brief outline on how the Patriot Act diminished American rights under the Constitution.)[i]
It should be noted that had Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin not voted against the Patriot Act, it would have passed unanimously in the Senate. This is a graphic demonstration of how our nationally elected leaders, who, by the way, swore an allegiance to the Constitution, are susceptible to wilting under the momentum of blind patriotism. However, an honest debate over the administration of America’s war aims is at the heart of responsible citizenship, and this imposes a greater standard of care on elected officials, because they have a sworn duty to uphold the citizens’ rights granted under the Constitution.
In the case where our governing bodies lack the will, the courage, and the conviction to engage in thoughtful deliberations over questionable policies, it helps to grease the skids for dubious, possibly illegal infringements on the nation’s coveted, Constitutional rights. This is why dissent is often the greatest form of patriotism, particularly when the momentum of a nation’s war aims, tends to censor those who object. Notwithstanding honest debates over this country’s war objectives and policies, most Americans want to see the destruction of the enemy. This is why when the military objectives for victory are met, liberals and conservatives lock arms in celebration.
 |
| Osama bin Laden |
After President Barack Obama announced to an international audience that the United States Navy had captured and killed Osama bin Laden, there was an undeclared cease-fire in the derisive political climate for roughly 72 hours. Although it was apparent that some conservative Republicans were strained beyond their capacity to suspend animosity towards the president, the murder of bin Laden granted him a temporary respite from opposition.
How fitting it is to end this series—Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion—discussing the capture and death of Osama bin Laden, who had evaded U.S. efforts to capture him for nearly a decade. In a stunning pre-dawn operation, Seal-Team Six, the Navy’s secret Tier One (reports directly to the president) counter-terrorism group, descended upon the one acre compound deep in Pakistan and within minutes captured and killed bin Laden. As news of his reported death began to emerge, there were spontaneous celebrations in front of the White House and in New York City at what has been christened ‘Ground Zero,’ where the World Trade Towers once stood.
If Osama bin Laden was really killed by the U.S. Navy, then why haven’t I been swept up in the patriotic fervor that greeted the news of his death? I mean, I was as horrified as anyone else as I watched the World Trade Towers collapse after terrorists plowed commercial airliners into the symbol of American finance; the survivors of those killed in the attacks notwithstanding. However, two weeks after the president announced bin Laden’s death, I find myself struggling to find solace in his demise. This odd sense of indifference, I’m certain, is due in large part to the massive doses of suspicion that have been injected into my being as I learn more about satan’s keen skill at deceiving the leadership at the highest levels of government, business and religion.
I have often wondered if September 11th was a strategic bombing campaign by those forces intent on bringing human civilization under global domination. My use of the term strategic bombing does not imply its traditional military description—a military strategy designed to diminish the public will to wage war by bombing civilian targets instead of the military’s land, air, and/or naval forces. Strategic bombing as used in this instance is defined as a strategy to use 9/11 as a weapon to weaken the American public’s innate opposition against any incursions into their Constitutional guarantees. When I consider that President George W. Bush used the mantra of “national security” to obtain dubious domestic and foreign policies during the four year period after the attacks, it heightens my suspicion even further.
The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 over allegations that Saddam Hussein participated in the 9/11 attacks and that he was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We later discovered that President Bush was wrong on both counts: Saddam neither contributed to the bombings of the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, nor was he actively pursuing a WMD arsenal. Now, I am not here to defend Saddam, but America has an intelligence apparatus that is in some respects unbelievable; therefore, it is very difficult for me to accept the notion that Bush authorized the overthrow of Saddam based on solid intelligence. American intelligence does not make blunders of this magnitude, which begs the question: Why did the United States invade Iraq?[ii] I have my theories, which are beyond the scope of this article; however, as the War on Terror continues to rage, nothing has been done to alleviate my doubts, including the capture of bin Laden.
I can’t be the only apprehensive soul out there after hearing about the killing of Osama bin Laden. If so, will someone please explain to me how the U.S. Military carried out a kill mission in Abbottabad, a city that is nearly 250 miles from the Afghan border, without triggering Pakistan’s early warning system? America’s military could not invade Grenada, one of the poorest countries in the Western hemisphere, without setting off its enemy detection trip wires; so how does it pull off this feat against a nuclear power? Plus, one would think that the helicopter that crash landed on bin Laden’s compound and the subsequent gun fight would have alerted the police, the military school and the military base that were in close proximity of his posh living quarters. This is akin to a burglar breaking into one’s home while everyone is asleep, and then throwing the family’s fine china against a wall without waking up anyone. I know the American military has remarkable capabilities, and the seals who captured bin Laden are the most highly trained fighting force in the world, and considering their technological advantages, they may be the most highly trained unit in the history of warfare. However, even they could not have pulled off a mission the way it has been described by the Obama administration. They’re good; just not that good.
The seals would have to be able to turn water into wine; raise the dead; walk on the waves of a raging sea; and travel back and forth through our space-time continuum in order to sneak that deep into Pakistan and return safely without detection.
Although bin Laden was Public Enemy #1 in the United States, he edged on sainthood within the Islamic faith and many Muslims saw him as a hero in the same pantheon as the Prophet himself. So then, one must ask—“Why did Pakistan give him up, or at a minimum, turn a blind eye to the American gunships?” Yes, Pakistan had to roll out the red carpet for the American Seals to capture, and then kill bin Laden in order for them to return to Afghanistan unscathed after the assault. I do understand the fictional animosity that is being played out between the Pakistani leaders and the Obama Administration. I mean, for Pete’s sake, they just permitted the American military to kill the most famous Muslim in the world; consequently, they must portray themselves as a sovereign power that had been violated by American aggression; and I am okay with that.
Scripted loathing is a tool of diplomacy which the U.S. used in its opposition to the former Soviet Union for more than 40 years. Their theatrical performance on the world stage permitted them both to spend inhumane amounts of money on their war-making capabilities; however, when either one of them were threatened by a formidable foe, they became allies (see World War II). And at the climax of their little 40-year performance, the wall came down and the Russian bear disappeared in the middle of the night without firing one single, solitary shot; violating the first law of nature—survival. At the most basic building-block of society, the leaders of Russia and the Western world are brothers, and in the post-Cold War world, they can do in public what they had always done in private—cooperate. Did anyone really believe that two brothers would ever drop nuclear weapons on one another? This is why the first nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan and no plans had ever been initiated that had Germany as a target.[iii]
Germany’s animosity over the so called Scramble for Africa was the root of both world wars. In 1885 the Western powers met in Berlin and drew up a plan, later called the Berlin Treaty, which offered each nation exclusive, unobstructed access to various regions in the Dark Continent. Germany, not satisfied with its allocation under the terms of the treaty, sought to gain control over additional territories. Great Britain and France, alarmed at Germany’s expansionist aspirations, sought to limit its control in the region, which precipitated the European Civil War, better known as World War I.
Bin Laden was fighting a different war against the West. While Germany sought to expand its influence and territorial borders in Europe, bin Laden was fighting for something different; the very survival of Islam. According to the Washington Post, the “arrival of U.S. troops in the Middle East, initially deployed in 1990 to oust Iraq from Kuwait, served to focus bin Laden’s ire on the view of the United States as a domineering, corrosive threat to Islam…His deft use of international media helped magnify his message of murderous defiance against Western influences.”[iv] (In Part 8 and Part 10 of this series, I quoted Carroll Quigley, who exposed a clandestine effort by the Western world to destroy the modes of thought and action of every non-Western civilization. And he graphically illustrated in his books Tragedy and Hope and The Anglo-American Establishment that Europeans bearing the culture of Greek, Roman, Aryan and Western Civilizations have destroyed 14 civilizations since the Greek Empire. It should also be noted that the destruction of the Russian Empire (Eastern Orthodox Civilization), which came years after the Quigley publications, also came at the hands of Western Civilization.)
The history of Western Civilization is a narrative of death and destruction, and bin Laden understood that he was fighting for a way of life—Islam—which the Western world has pushed to the verge of the grave. And if one considers the recent wave of dissent, fueled by cries for democracy, that has flooded the Muslim world, Islam may already be dead, and the next of kin is simply waiting for the pathologist’s autopsy report. However, if Islam is not dead, the seduction of the Western lifestyle may be too alluring for the new generations of Muslims to resist. Consequently, it may just be a matter of time before they all turn in their Holy Qur’ans, burqas, Hajjes and other pillars of their faith for iPads, smartphones, fine cars, fast-food, Hollywood, overtime pay, 401k retirement plans, paid hospitalization, tele-Imams and all of the other trappings of living in a Western democracy.
…to be continued
Note: Part 8 of Western Civilization’s Unrelenting Expansion was scheduled to be the final article in this series; however, as a result of the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden, I have added two additional articles to the series. I will be publishing the sequel to this article on bin Laden on May 22nd. Please look for it.
© 2011 by David R. Tolson
[i] Brief comparison of the USA Patriot Act and the Constitution of the United States
- The First Amendment provides for the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble. The Patriot Act permits the U.S. Government to monitor religious and political institutions without any suspicion of criminal activity.
- The Fourth Amendment grants citizens the right to be protected “against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Patriot Act permits the government to search and seize American’s papers and other effects without probable cause.
- The Sixth Amendment entitles anyone accused of a crime to a “speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Patriot Act permits the government to incarcerate citizens indefinitely without a trial.
- The Sixth Amendment also provides that an accused person has “compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance to council for defense.” The Patriot Act says the government can monitor conversations between attorneys and their defendant clients in federal prison and can even prohibit Americans accused of criminal wrongdoing from accessing a lawyer.
- The Sixth Amendment also says an accused criminal must be “confronted with witnesses against him.” The Patriot Act permits Americans to be imprisoned without being charged, let alone face any witnesses (Jesse Ventura, 63 Documents that the Government Doesn’t Want You To Read, (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2011), p. 12.)
[ii] I have written extensively on the presidency of George W. Bush, so I will not repeat my critique of his eight years in office. However, for those who may be interested in a more detailed examination of the Bush years and his campaign on terror, please see my blog where I publish a 4-part series regarding his administration - http://thepeoplespulse.blogspot.com/2008/02/appraisal-on-bush-presidency-part-i.html (part 1). Also, my article A Disturbing Update on the War on Terror was published in conjunction with my appraisal on the Bush administration - http://thepeoplespulse.blogspot.com/2008/02/disturbing-update-on-global-war-on.html.
[iii] Some will argue that the bomb was not dropped on German because it had surrendered prior to the bomb being ready for use. However a careful study of the Manhattan Project will confirm that as early as 1943 there were never any plans to drop the bomb on German. America’s war strategy always placed Japan in the crosshairs of the first nuclear weapon, which is why Hiroshima was never firebombed like other Japanese cities, in order to preserve it as a justifiable target for incineration - http://www.rense.com/general90/whyhir.htm.
[iv] “U.S. forces kill Osama bin Laden; Obama: ‘Justice has been done,’ The Washington Post, 2 May 2011, sec A. p. 6.
No comments:
Post a Comment