October 10, 2003, The Philippine Star, Op-Ed, America and preventive war; After Iraq, North Korea next, by Teodoro C. Benigno,

October 10, 2003, The Philippine Star, Op-Ed, America and preventive war; After Iraq, North Korea next, by Teodoro C. Benigno,

During our 30-day leave, we read a bundle of books, serious ones of course on what gave in our contemporary world as it heaved and twisted, turned and tumbled, swifted up and down. We spent long hours at Barnes and Noble, at Borders, other book stores where famous authors leaped at our eyes, dazzled us with their erudition, their knowledge. Particularly arresting was Paul Krugman, probably America's most imaginative and creative economist whose latest best-seller The Great Unravelling had the critics entranced. 

His theme was that the US republic had been hijacked by the radical right who figured the US could now do anything it pleased anywhere in the world because America was exceptionally outfitted by God and destiny to destroy any enemy if it believed this enemy plotted its destruction. 

Other books I readily fished out were Thomas Friedman's Attitude and Longitudes, Faheed Zakari's The Future of Freedom, Ariana Huffington's Pigs at the Trough, David Halberstam's War In A Time of Peace, Carl Limbaugh's Hillary's Scheme, Benjamin Barber's Fear's Empire. Oh yes, I did pick up John Grisham's The Bleachers and another novel whose title escapes me right now. Do I get to read all these books? Yes, most wholly, others partly, and that's where I get a lot of the information and knowledge I dish out in this space. 

The most relevant right now is Fear's Empire. It is a book on war, terrorism and democracy – a critical success. Even George Soros admits it’s "compelling" and Harvard's Stanley Hoffman depicts Barber's book as "wise, learned and justifiably angry". It is. I got a baleful of what "preventive war" is all about after President George W. Bush in a fit of imperial hauteur shook his fist and said: "We cannot let our enemies strike first." To fully understand today's swirling world, Barbers gets us into the heart of "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002." America waged war on Iraq. And now it's struck as an occupying force fighting a guerilla war with a people the US thought would embrace about 140,000 Yankee troops who had "liberated" them. 

What went wrong? 

The assumptions of preventive war clashed with reality on the ground in Iraq. America's great mistake was to wage war and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. That was "the day of infamy" when Islamic terrorists rammed three commercial aircraft against the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. About 3000 died. And America was never the same after that, for that matter the rest of the world. And so the doctrine of preemptive war was repackaged. And it was repackaged to suit America's imperial purposes in the 21st century, to "shock and awe", to "make men meek" at the slightest shudder of the US’s armed might. 

The American leadership's second big mistake was to assume it could easily transform Iraq into a democracy. 

The roots of Islam go back half a millennium in Iraq. The roots of democracy go back 200 to 250 years in America. You do not just dissolve one into the other. There will be shocks. Mutual recoil will ensue as contrasting cultures clash and that is what is now happening in Iraq. An occupying power is hardly ever loved. The French found that out in Indochina, the British in India, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Japanese in the Philippines. When George Bush said "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him," that was another blunder. The "coalition of the willing" until now cannot find any weapons of mass destruction. There was nothing to disarm. Certainly not nuclear missiles that Iraq had not yet learned to manufacture. 

And then again, the American apotheosis: "By our resolve we will give strength to others. By our courage we will give hope to others. And by our actions we will secure the peace and lead the world to a better day. May God bless America." Typical was Cofer Black's (CIA counter-terrorism deputy) who said: "When we are through with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they will have flies walking across their eyeballs." This anger is understandable for a nation butchered by the terrorists of Osama bin Laden. But when it leads to preventive war, America's endeavors, says Barbers, will be "written in blood". 

Now, Barbers continues, President Bush "has effectively identified North Korea as a charter member of the Axis of Evil," this country too "will be a potential target of the new preventive war strategy." We wrote in some detail on this in our last column. We also pointed out the Philippines would be drawn in since American troops would pour into our country by the thousands to gear up for the coming wars in Asia against terrorism and other targets. Here again the preventive war doctrine comes into play. Its theorists claim "America's special destiny permits it to pursue policies aimed at disarming potential adversaries and democratizing potential tyrants because its own existence is special and worthy of special measures – a rational not permitted to other nations". 

This is "exceptionalism". It means, from America's point of view, "other nations have no particular right to deploy preventive strategies of their own. But from the perspective of other countries, America's embrace of the preventive doctrine established a significant precedent since America sees itself as a standard-bearer and standard-setter for the world community." Barbers sees this as somewhat "comical", because other countries can also threaten America and say: "Either you change your regime, America, and renounce your weapons of mass destruction, or face a preventive Iraqi strike!" 

Maybe America remains heedless of all this criticism, this repugnance for preventive war. Only days ago, Israel, very presumably with the encouragement of Washington, launched air strikes at targets deep in Syrian territory. The US, of course, sided with Israel and emphasized that before the strikes on Syria, Palestine terror organizations based in Syria struck in Haifa and killed 19 Israelis. Still, there was no equivalent since this was a nation-state being attacked and Syria had not experienced an external attack for 20 years. It was understandable that in the United Nations, the Israeli action touched off furor. And Syria is demanding the Security Council conduct an emergency probe. Israel's reported riposte is that it would launch more air attacks against Syria. 

In 1957, President Dwight Eisenhower declared: "We cannot consider that the armed invasion or occupation of another country are peaceful means or proper means to achieve justice and conformity with international law." It was also Mr. Eisenhower, who commanded the American invasion of Normandy as a five-star general, who also warned against the emergence of the military-industrial complex. He said this complex, if not stopped, would threaten to devour America since it was an unholy alliance of money and military might. 

Forty-seven years later, September 2002, the National Security Strategy of the United States of America was bellowed to the world. And it said: "The President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling the power of the United States." 

Here lies the danger of power that may run amuck for its recognizes no other god except its own. Barbers rightly contends that even where virtue can be demonstrated, "the doctrine fails the test of international legality." American virtue can hardly be accepted by others as a universal standard. "Imagine an international law that read ‘Nations may only resort to war in cases of self-defense, except the United States which because it is special can resort to war whenever it wants." 

And so I shudder anew because the headwinds of a new war are approaching the Korean Peninsula. And I know that as the headwinds approach, the Philippines in one way or another will be involved. Our government, our president has unreservedly taken the side of America, the cause of America. When the guns roar and the missiles explode, millions will die. Our only defense is the American shield, and we never know how that shield will be raised. Maybe our president should not have been too hasty in taking up the cudgels for America. Maybe we should have been more cautious, more prudent, more protective of our political sovereignty. 

As Barbers concludes, "No nation, not even one as powerful as America, can root its foreign policy in special reasoning forbidden to others . . . unless it somehow secures its permanent dominion over the entire planet, something no nation in an interdependent world can possibly do." Maybe David Levering Lewis, another renowned author could be right when he says Paul Krugman's The Great Unravelling calls for a "great revulsion across the land before it is too late." 

America must seek negotiation – not war – with North Korea. Now, before it's too late.