| | News reports today of the latest U.S. raid into Pakistan, in which unmanned American drones killed some 27 people in the northwest of the country makes the latest from Robert Dreyfuss required reading. Coming on the heels of an unanticipated and deadly attack across the Syrian border, this kind of cross-border raid by the U.S. is an ominous sign about the direction of our so-called "War on Terror." A parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancient regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine -- the one that Sarah Palin couldn't name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats -- this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in "hot pursuit" of anyone it doesn't like. They're already applying it to Pakistan, and this week Syria was the target. Is Iran next? With the presidential election days away, the question is as pressing as ever. As Dreyfuss writes today in The Nation, "There's no doubt that the financial crisis, job insecurity, and fundamental economic worries are the No. 1 issue in Tuesday's vote. But that raises a critical question: If Barack Obama is elected, will he have an antiwar mandate?" As with the 2006 midterms, the answer should be a resounding "yes." But, as we saw in the years since, this will not necessarily lead to an end to the war. Moreover, as recent weeks have shown all too clearly, when we talk about the "war," we are talking well beyond Iraq. The "War on Terror" puts any country the U.S. declares "criminal" in our crosshairs. While Obama no doubt represents a reassuring contrast to John McCain when it comes to military restraint, it will be up to the American people to stand up and demand an end to a policy of endless war, not on November 4th -- but on November 5th and beyond. Happy voting, Liliana Segura Editor, War on Iraq Special Coverage | |
No comments:
Post a Comment