For the Love of War

North Korea:

Not to darken anyone's holiday spirit, but amid the expansive coverage of Mueller's investigation, the tax reform composed for the wealthy, the death of net neutrality, the Alabama special election, and the continual ouster of perverts from prestigious positions, an ominous media offensives passes unobserved.

While the President has stoked tensions with North Korea, language emanating from White House officials and Republican senators indicate they are so desperate for a war, they're willing to risk two simultaneous engagements: North Korea and Iran. This isn't only about the bellicose statements the President recklessly tweets in his his campaign for title of toughest son of a bitch in history, but rather the insidious propaganda campaign more akin to President Bush's efforts to seduce the public into the invasion of Iraq.

President has been denouncing the two as his own duality of demons since the presidential primary, but over the last few months, and even days, the message has escalated. Coming from the White House and its hawkish allies, the quiet, pervasive theme is, we will be at war with North Korea and Iran soon.

Don't take my word for it. As far back as August 1st, 2017, Lindsey Graham has been slowly inflating the potential for conflict, aided and condoned by Trump's administration. After North Korea's second test of an intercontinental ballistic missile, Graham said the United States can't allow a “madman” to have a nuclear weapon capable of reaching the continental United States.

Graham and Trump, who in the past called each other nutjob and a kook unfit for office, have bonded over their mutual desire to bomb another nation into atoms. According to Graham, the two conversed and agreed upon a shared plan. North Korea's nuclear ambition must be stopped regardless the cost, but as North Korea's ability to acquire nuclear weapons capable of striking anywhere on the globe becomes assured, experts have pointed out it's something the United States may have to live with.

Yet, Trump's cabinet disdains acceptance, and is still offering bloodthirsty cries of fire and fury, or total annihilation. What began in August didn't end there. Graham has steadily escalated his language, on September 15th, insisting that the United States, “forcefully back up our diplomatic efforts with the threat of a credible military option.”

A single, solitary voice of sanity inside the White House has continued to argue against aggression. Tillerson, a global oil exec, pretending to play diplomat and musical chairs director, has repeatedly reassured the world, that the United States is willing to talk, only to be shot down by his boss. Other voices inside the White House overshadow his, especially McMaster's, but Lindsey Graham seems to be eager to lead, and the occurrence of his warnings is accelerating.



And on December 14th, in explaining his recent discussion with President Trump over a round of golf, Graham said, “I would say there’s a three in 10 chance we use the military option,” and if the North Koreans conduct a seventh test, he advances, “I would say 70 percent.”

In the same interview he helpfully compares allowing North Korea's nuclear ambitions to Britain's appeasement of Nazi Germany, and reminds the reader of his clearsightedness, not willing to soften the truth when he declares, “There is no surgical strike option.” War with North Korea is total and perpetual until their annihilation.

Meanwhile the White House keeps tripping over itself, to reassert its aggressive stance. Rex Tillerson said on the 12th of December that the United States was willing to speak to North Korea without preconditions, but the next day White House officials retorted that North Korea's behavior must improve before talks can begin.

McMaster continues to offer a stance which professional diplomats say is impossible: “Denuclearization is the only viable objective and if we all focus on that, we have a strong chance for success.” As long as they keep believing that, they'll ignore other practicable options.

As for the other target, after refusing to re-certify the Iran nuclear deal, while admitting that Iran was legally compliant though violating “the spirit” of the agreement, the White House has searched everywhere for an infraction. On December 14th, Nikki Haley, United States envoy to the United Nations, presented evidence supposedly linking Iran in supplying weapons to Houthi rebels in Yemen, in violation of an unrelated United Nations resolution, while the United States aids Saudi Arabia unconscionable blockade of the country. The White House is simultaneously presenting evidence in its preparation for conflict.
As said earlier, McMaster's will only accept denuclearization, so why won't North Korea give up its nuclear weapons? Another Trump official has made the case perfectly clear. When the United States convinces a regime to divest its nuclear ambitions, security does not follow: elimination is the result. In spite of this conclusion, they might still talk.

In the lead up to the atrocity of Iraq, the Bush administration deceived the citizens of the United States into the belief that Saddam was preparing an imminent attack with nuclear or other destructive weapons. This was a lie, and Noam Chomsky rebutted it by explaining the difference between preemptive and preventative: “US planned to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.

Though for some the difference may seem like splitting hairs, preemptive war is used to halt an imminent, immediate threat, while preventative war occurs when no threat yet exists. One may think preventative war superior to preemptive, and personally this author holds both as egregious moral errors, but regardless, if one is willing to attack any nation when it could be a threat, one must admit that many nations are currently our targets, and an attack against any is reasonable and just.

Unlike Iraq, no one will dispute North Korea's agenda, they want intercontinental nuclear weapons, and they nearly have them. But do they want them to attack the United States, or for the same reason every nation desires them. Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons for deterrence. Is owning nuclear weapons a justification for war? During the Cold War, the United States coined mutual assured destruction, and doubled down on it, devoting more of our military spending to nuclear weapons, while the Soviet Union focused on conventional warfare. Is it possible, that North Korea, a country the United States invaded in defense of South Kore, wants only the same assurance as the other nations of the world? To not be enthralled to the threats of other nations?

North Korea continually threatens its neighbors, abuses its citizens, and declares destruction to be the fate of the United States. Yet, bellicose statements and insults often conceal weakness (just ask our POTUS), and the nation is more akin to an abused dog than a threat. If threats are a justification, then the United States, and many others are guilty for inciting war.

In conclusion, Lindsay Graham said “madman” can't be allowed to control nuclear weapons. At what point does the United States become the madman? The authority of the president in the use of the nuclear arsenal is absolute. If United States' policy is to launch a preventative strike any nation which may become a threat, who is safe as global hegemony slips away from our grasping fingers?

The question isn't whether we can live with a Nuclear North Korea, but whether the world can live with us.

Recent:

Relevant:

Comments