Culture of Rapine

Source

The hordes often grumble and hiss when Bush & Co. characterize themselves as advocating a "culture of life". How can someone who says, "I'm a man of peace," annihilate over 25,000 civilians in Iraq, and under fraudulent claims of threat no less? But no matter. What's done is done. This wasn't the first time that a large-scale military offensive was launched under justifications so flimsy and so comic. What right-wingers refer to as the "post-9/11 paradigm" or "post-9/11 threat assessment strategies" are merely modern rhetorical tactics meant to facilitate complete freedom of action on the battlefield - including freedom from the effeminate ethical and moral constraints of civilians (for whom a phrase like "culture of life" actually has some meaning). In the past, these normative ethical restraints were embodied by Bill Clinton, the U.N., "hippies", etc. That Bush & Co. see such popular norms of moral behavior as equivalent to a queasy moral relativism is of importance only insofar as their ability to maneuver on the battlefield may be compromised. And make no mistake: it is compromised. Of all the many wars of aggression and conquest that have been waged by humanity, the war in Iraq is, in fact, unique in one respect only: our ability to achieve total victory is compromised by the ethical codes of our populace. Unlike recent wars, America was defending neither principle, nor property, nor liberty, nor life when she slogged her way into Baghdad. Nothing unusual there. By rights, Bush, as the conquering leader of a great army, can do whatever-the-fuck he wants in Iraq. Or can he? Murder, rapine, enslavement, and indiscriminate destruction might be frowned upon – and so would occupation in perpetuity. And yet... he wants to wallow in the spoils. Why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't we? Gas prices are soaring and here we are, in virtual possession of one of the largest subterraneous oceans of oil in the world, with nothing to show for it. Nothing. Iraq is approaching a sectarian civil war faster than they're approaching democracy; OPEC countries are exponentially more likely to use their exports as a defensive weapon against U.S. policy; and the threat of continuing terrorist attacks remains unaffected (or possibly increased). What now? If we back off, well... that would be embarrassing. Everyone would have died for literally nothing. If we press on, we must do so with even more bloodlust than before; and we must commit ourselves to seizing the spoils of war. Which brings me to Pat Robertson:

I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. [...] ...this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly.

Amen. Unless we take Pat's advice, we're in serious danger of dishonoring the memory of our fallen patriots. In the days leading up to the invasion of Iraq, Ken Pollack made a passionate case that oil itself (control of it, access to it, the price of it) justified war. Oddly, that didn't sit too well with many people (i.e., "No Blood For Oil", etc.). Now, we're at the moment of truth. Either we need to commit fully to a full-scale global war of conquest, or we need to admit that we're just a bunch of rude barbarians with super-powerful technology. You're either with Pat Robertson or you're against him.

ADDENDUM: It's all moot. Pat Robertson is nothing more than a flat-out liar. ("Wait a minute, I didn't say 'assassination.'") Sheathe your daggers. Go back to your homes. Soothe your furrowed brows.