My last post was on February 27th. It felt at the time like things might be looking up. Then, news came that the US had attacked Iran. My outlook has been bleak ever since. The last several days have been a knot of tension and rage. All my commentary on HIVE thus far has been via snaps, like that link except more eloquent.
Image credit
Mark Twain's War Prayer is as relevant now as it was when he penned it over a century ago. Innocent men, women, and children have been butchered in Iran, and blowback has lead to deaths across the middle east. Here in the US, war fever has hit harder than COVID. Nothing about this war makes sense, but as usual, tribalism is informing positions more than reason. Talking points have replaced logic and evidence. While more people die in a new pointless war, partisan bickering has taken over on social media. I don't even know how many Web2 accounts are real humans these days. Between bots and engagement farms, the signal-to-noise ratio could be abysmal. However, people I know in real life are also swallowing these lies hook, line, and sinker.
Illegal War
One of the main misconceptions (or blatant lies?) from MAGA jingoes relates to the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Despite Trump and many of his predecessors insisting otherwise, this bill was deigned to prevent exactly this sort of overreach. You can find the full text here, but this section outlining its purpose and scope at the start is key.
(a) Congressional declaration
It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.
(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause
Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
In section C above, there are three specific, limited instances where the President can use military force. However (1) there has been no declaration of war, (2) there is no specific statutory authorization, and (3) there has been no national emergency created by any attack on the US.
Any discussion of "60 calendar days" or other later provisions are moot if the basic threshold has not been met in the first place. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is explicit in its list of enumerated powers for Congress, and clause 11 clearly states it has the exclusive power to,
...[D]eclare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
This is completely ignored by MAGA apologists, who want to leap directly to Article 2, Section 2, clause 1, which states,
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States [...]
However, they ignore the explicit caveat that this only applies to when the military is called into actual service. As in, when Congress has declared war or made a specific statutory authorization. Donald J. Trump notably failed to ask for that, or make a case for war at all, during his State of the Union speech.
For lack of a better term, I am an anarchist. I reject the legitimacy of all governments. I lean toward Lysander Spooner's argument in No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority (1870), where he closed with, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." However, Republicans like to portray themselves as staunch defenders of small government and strict construction of the Constitution, so their blatant disregard for the plain language there in the clear limitations in law demonstrates cognitive dissonance.
Unjust War
If war can be just, it must meet several strict criteria. Philosophers differ here as much as anywhere else, but the typical consensus boils down to competent authorities can only rightly declare war as a last resort for a just cause with a reasonable probability of success.
National rulers and elected representatives are presumed to be competent authorities, but the President of the United States cannot legally act on his own outside of specific emergencies as already discussed.
This is a war of choice, not a war of necessity. Negotiations were ongoing, and reportedly making progress, not trapped in a stalemate. There was no last resort. Instead, Trump demolished his claims to both peace and diplomacy in his attack.
A just cause must be more than a propaganda campaign. Defense against a clear and present danger, or action to prevent imminent danger to human life, would qualify. However, despite Iran's abysmal human rights record, they are far from a unique evil, and America has turned a blind eye to equal or greater atrocities committed by its allies. This humanitarian concern was one of several excuses thrown ta the wall to see what would stick, not a real justification.
Finally, a just war requires reasonable odds of success, and the post-World War II era has an abysmal track record for interventionism, regime change, and occupation. This war in particular is a logistical disaster already, and no grand strategy or victory plan has been announced.
But that's not all. That only covers starting a war. Once a nation is engaged in war, there are more criteria to determine whether it is waged in a just manner. Combat operations must be proportionate, make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and actions must be restricted to military necessity instead of wanton destruction and torture.
Needless to say, the USA and Israel have failed on each of these criteria already as well. Schools and hospitals have reportedly been destroyed, with over 150 schoolgirls brutally murdered as "collateral damage." Whether this incident was a direct result of US/Israeli munitions, or a malfunctioning Iranian defense missile as some report, is really irrelevant since Iran did not initiate this war. However, Israel's actions in Gaza lead me to consider their excuses here with considerable skepticism.
Inconsistent Excuses
We needed to go to war to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even though they were part of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, passed numerous inspections, and signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia and United Kingdom. Then, just last year, Donald Trump sent bombers to "Totally obliterate" Iran's nuclear capabilities, which were still under inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency with no reported nuclear weapons programs despite higher levels of enrichment. The late Ayatollah Khamenei also issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, for what it's worth.
Then we also needed to go to war to protect Iranian protesters and political dissidents because Iran had created a humanitarian crisis. Never mind US chaos. Never mind Israel's treatment of Gaza and the West Bank. Pay no attention to literal modern-day slavery in many US-allied Arab states. Nope, we need to protect Iranians from Iran above all else!
Then, the justifications started citing historical conflicts dating back a decade to the 2016 US/Iran Naval incident, dubious allegations of Iranian involvement in IED production during the Iraq war, or even the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis. Why do those suddenly matter now? And why don't these historical analyses dare to look back to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état where the USA and Britain conspired to overthrow a democratic government and install the Shah as dictator? That is what sparked the eventual 1979 Iranian revolution, and created a deep distrust for the west in Iran.
Then, we heard straight from Marco Rubio that this was all because Israel was planning an attack, and the US decided joining in was the best option, because... reasons?
Sorry, that doesn't fly. If the US is really allowing Israel to dictate when, where, and with whom we wage war, it is long past time to cut ties, tell the truth to their targets, and let Tel Aviv suffer the consequences. Israel is not the 51st state, they consume vast sums of US tax revenue, and berate anyone who criticizes their secular state as "antisemitic." With friends like these, who needs enemies?
And no, criticizing the secular state of Israel is not the same as hatred for Judaism, ethnic Jews, or Israeli civilians, Don't conflate those things. That would be like saying opposition to the US government automatically means hatred for all Americans, and that's just stupid. I'm an anarchist, remember? My enemy is the political class, not nationality, race, or religion. And in the words of Randolph Bourne,
With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war. [...] The result is that, even in those countries where the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the nation into battle.
[...]
War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.*
Don't lie about what they are fighting for,
Don't claim they died as heroes over there,
Or claim that foreign deaths are somehow fair.
Supposedly there will be Congressional action tomorrow to retroactively approve or condemn Trump's war. We will see what, if anything, happens.
Personally I have a pretty simple rule... I will not endorse or advocate any war I'm not willing to take up arms and fight in myself. And since that criteria for the most part involves whether it's self defense, I'm not seeing any reasons good enough to persuade me.
As to the inconsistent messaging, I suspect from the US government perspective this war is more about containing and/or crippling China (and to a much lesser extent Russia) than anything else. Energy is the master resource, and closing off Iran's oil exports (I think ~90% of which go to China) cuts off something like 13% of China's oil imports. Ouch. Israel's leadership has other reasons to want this, but for the US leadership I believe it's part of a larger strategy, and one they don't want to say out loud. If I remember right the ODNI's latest report said there was no significant PRESENT effort from Iran to develop nuclear weapons, so yes the whole "we had to do it or else they're gonna carry out mass destruction" excuse falls flat. To be fair to the other side, Iran's government has enriched uranium FAR more than needed for energy use, so Iran has been toeing over the line and isn't negotiating in good faith either... but still, the potential threat is not the imminent kind they hint at.
Now while I am willing to concede that there are/were horrible people in Iran's leadership and that Iran has been a threat to the REGION for decades, that is still not the same as a threat to the USA. If the majority of Iran's neighbors truly want an end to Iran's government (which seems to be the case), then that's on them. And while I do see China's government as an adversary and potential threat to the American people (not just our government), I'm not sure it's even close to the level that requires this kind of action to counter it. And even if it does, I have little confidence our "leadership" can pull it off successfully without making the general situation worse.
But at the end of the day I try to be pragmatic, and accept my opinion has zero influence on decisions made in the halls of power. IMHO we are living in an era of "might makes right" (or perhaps a better one is "the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must"), and Trump and is less a driver of this change and more a symptom of the growing trend. So I try to focus less on being outraged at the hypocrisy and immorality and focus more on adapting to the developments, much like I can't change the weather but I can adapt appropriately to the conditions.
Of course that school being bombed was Israel/US - it's totally Netanyahu ie.Psychopath to do something like that, he's been practicing in Gaza hasn't he? Fucking outrageous. He's been dying to go to war in Iran for a long time. Trump going against any guardrails just makes a mockery of the whole system, as does Netanyahu's war crimes - it's an absolute joke, and a horrific one. Thing is we can all see exactly what's happening and they're still lying.
Ugh, we don't still have to say this do we?
But in the end, it's looking like a religous war isn't it? Israel claiming more ground, Iran pushing US out with hope for spread of Islam stronghold across that part of the world, Christian soldier army fighting the evil Muslim?? It's comically fucked up. I mean Hegseth openly showing tattoos that declare he's an infidel is clearly not US army embracing multifaiths is it - the Christian empire must be strengthened by fighting the evil in the Middle East. It's about how men in charge like this can transform personal beliefs into policy and action. Doesn't he also have a Crusader cross?
Don't get depressed my friend. Turn to the sun and think about the positive things you can do to make the world a better place. We sure as hell can't do much to change it. It's frustrating when we can see the bullshit and not be able to do anything, I know. But hey, at least we have some like minded Hive folk that are happy to throw dialogue around hey!
Regarding the Iranian protest and the US intervention, I saw an Iranian influencer put it this way:
When the egg is cracked from the inside, the bird comes out naturally, strong and healthy. When the egg is cracked from the outside it usually gets cooked.
If the goal was to help the Iranian liberation, then dropping bombs on schools was the worst way to get there.
And of course, as you already know, My stance is that none of the reasons they give us are the real reason we're there. Trump has already expressed his lust for oil, and Iran is the next best thing for high-quality oil. In fact, his rhetoric on 'taking their oil' is older than his role in politics.
I also believe that this has more to do with securing the $dollar as the global currency, in light of the strong possibility that Iran, China, Brazil, and a few others are conceptualizing a new future trade currency.
Of course these reasons will not win any favorability by the American public (aside from a few psychos), so they need to come up with a story where "we're the heroes", where "we had no other choice", "they are the villains", etc.
But overall, I have to give you all the credit - this is a genuinely comprehensive and well-nuanced post. And as a secular-jew(understatement) and Israeli, I appreciate you firmly separating the jewish identity and the the genocidal state of Israel. I might be in the minority, but not all jews support these blatant war-crimes. BUT, all Israelis get brainwashed as children, I can assure you of that. I'm an exception in that I've also lived in many places, and have shed all nationalistic tendencies from my identity. Only humanism matters as far as I'm concerned.
Americans are similarly brainwashed with American Exceptionalism and the civic religion of state worship though our education, media, and so-called Christian Nationalism in many churches. You could describe me as a Christian Anarchist. The early church was consistently anti-war, and ancient empires intertwined pagan religion with their politics. Caesars were also high priests in Roman cults. Now we pretend governments are secular, but I believe nationalism has an undercurrent of religious fervor. Burning a flag will get a similar response from a MAGA "patriot" as defiling the Koran would get from a devout Muslim even though both are mass-produced and widely available now.
Indeed, when the State becomes the religion.
So, I learned this recently, a friend of mine told me, that when she married, she and the groom had to recite a traditional ceremonial text, which includes an oath to Jerusalem. Like their marriage is first and foremost is in the name of Jerusalem, and only then it is between them.
I love her dearly, but I see how the State has bled into the spirit of the people. They don't understand that an average israeli has more in-common with an average Iranian then with the oligarchs that run the show - trying to cease new wealth. We are all just fodder to them.
I know you described yourself as an extremely secular individual, but I recommend taking a look at the Libertarian Christian Institute and the Bad Roman Podcast if you ever want to explore Christianity without state baggage. If nothing else, I once heard someone say to argue against the right from the right and against the left from the left, meaning to use someone's stated principles as the foundation to argue against their current position. Having a Biblical basis for arguments against "Christian" warmongers might give them pause if they are misled by bad spiritual leaders, and not deliberate deceivers themselves.
I never heard of Libretarian Christianity, so of course I'm curious, and will check it out. But I will be honest with you, I became a non-believer after reading the scripture - both the Torah and the Bible. There were a lot of things that didn't sit right with me on the moral basis, and as I learned more about the universe and life on this planet it was also on scientific basis... So I doubt there is a way back for me.
With that said, I do have a strong moral code, and I know Christians such as yourself, Muslims and jews who are very principled, and are closer to Humanism (where the wellbeing of all humans precedes, nationalism, or any sort of tribal adherence, and dare I say many religious commands). So I find that even though we might have some theological difference, we still have more in common morally and politically than what sets us apart.
The war is the Jeffery diversion.. the Jeffery diversion is the convid diversion and the convid diversion is the world is broke diversion.... I could go on...
I just don't understand how this works for normies.. how can even worse and even more absolutely mad stuff be a good diversion...? Wouldn't it be even more confirmation for thinking alive moral beings?
At this point, I am embarrassed to be an American. I hope the world realizes not all Americans are as crazy as Mr.Trump. Even the polls show more of us disapprove than approve of his current nonsense.
Congratulations @jacobtothe! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 23000 comments.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts: