Why Military Enlistment Contracts Are Fraudulent, Unnecessary, and Null and Void

I had originally wanted to post this over at Will Grigg's Pro Libertate Blog in response to his recent post on the Alexis Hutchinson case, but space and time make this impractical. My intent was to bring up the question of why enlistment contracts are even necessary for the defense of a free republic that is governed by the rule of law. The fact is that the rationale behind the State's criminalization of the breach of a military enlistment contract (this being a violation of the common law principles that separate civil from criminal law) by the enlistee is really quite simple: to defraud the enlistee through misrepresentation* and to coerce the enlistee into involuntary servitude to the State once the truly fraudulent nature of this "contract"** becomes apparent.

An aspect of this whole debate over military enlistment contracts that is rarely discussed, even among libertarians who consider the freedom of contract to be nearly sacred, is why such contracts, or indeed a standing military, are necessary in the first place for effective "national defense." (Yes, I know, the libertarian readers of this blog all know the answer to this, but it bears repeating for the newly liberty-conscious or uninitiated). When the thirteen sovereign states first declared their independence from Great Britain, the citizen militias that formed to drive the British out were NOT regular standing armies in the tradition European mold, but citizen militias. Their members signed no enlistment contracts, were not bound by any formal oath of service, and were not under the "command" of any formally commissioned officers. Indeed, they functioned very much like the 4GW forces Amerika has faced in every armed conflict it has embroiled itself in since the end of World War II. Only after the Continental Congress appointed George Washington supreme commander of the newly-formed Continental Army (and by what authority did they do this, one might ask?) did the rudiments of a formal army emerge, an event that foreshadowed the metastasis of the standing army that the founders (allegedly) tried to guard against and that we are burdened with today. (The late great libertarian sage Murray Rothbard wrote a fascinating description of the real George Washington, one certainly not taught in the Establishment's public indoctrination centers called public schools and state universities. His account details, among other unsavory things, Washington's ambitious campaign to turn the Continental Army into a carbon copy of the standing imperial armies then prevalent on the Old Continent).

Up until roughly 1779, the nature of the Continental Army was that of a loose collection of local militias, fluid in structure and composed entirely of volunteers, unbound by any form of formal contract. And why would they need one? These were men (and not a few women) committed to fighting for THEIR OWN FREEDOM, a commitment of the heart and soul that certainly does not require the organization of an oppressive gang or conscription thereinto. It was only after Washington and various allies in the Continental Congress succeeded in "Prussifying" the Continental Army, which after independence became the United States Army, that the rigid structures of imperial nationalist armies took hold, with all of the attendant corruption and abuse of power and authority. In other words, the federal Army was no longer, for all practical purposes, a volunteer citizens militia, but a formal institution of the central government, a recipe for creeping tyranny under any set of circumstances.

To summarize, neither an enlistment contract nor a standing army is in any way necessary for TRUE "national defense" if the government under which a nation's people live is one that respects and protects their lives, liberty, and property in accordance with constitutional and natural law, thus making it a nation worth defending in the first place.. Free people will not hesitate for a second to arm themselves and rush to their nation's defense when they know that it is genuinely and tangibly threatened. They certainly don't need any government to tell them this or force them into doing so when their homes, properties, families, and communities are under direct threat of assault, for it is mankind's natural instinct to protect that which he loves and in which he has a natural stake of ownership.

A standing army, on the other hand, is nothing but the State's armed muscle, a tyrannical force used to impose the State's will upon its subjects for its own narrow and selfish purposes, purposes that seldom ever have anything to do with the defense of the citizen's home, property, rights, life, and community. For this reason a legal ruse is required, backed by subterfuge and coercion, to mask the deceit and criminality behind the army's mission. True patriots, deceived into believing that their service in such body is an act of genuine lawful good, must be forced into a state of involuntary servitude to this monstrous organization once they discover the organization's real purpose: to serve the ends of the State at the citizen-patriot's expense. The enlistment contract is the instrument through which this is accomplished, and is thus a pseudo-legal perversion, a weapon of fraud and subversion of law, rather than a legal guarantor of institutional integrity or individual freedom of contract.

(*the misrepresentation being that the mark is enlisting to "defend the nation/Constitution/freedom)

(** The State's fiat declaring military enlistment contracts as exceptions to common law notwithstanding, any contract in which one party is allowed to violate or abrogate the contract at will is NOT a valid, legally binding contract)

Bill O'Reilly Is The Biggest Pinhead Of Them All (But You Already Knew That)

Kudos to David Kramer for posting this link today on the LRC Blog of Bill O'Reilly's latest journalistic hit piece disguised as an interview with Judge Andrew Napolitano. The fact that a loudmouth juvenile bully like O'Reilly, who hurls insults at those who exercise the poor judgment to appear on his show like cats gack up hairballs, even has an audience at all at Faux News says more about that outlet's viewership than any of its other programs. While O'Reilly's approach is insufferable on even his mildest days, his interview with the judge represented a new low, which one wouldn't think was possible with O'Reilly.

The first thing the viewer notices about O'Reilly, in addition to his habit of not even making a pretense of objective journalism, is his substitution of bluster and attitude for presentation of fact and ad hominem attacks on his guests for reasoned argument. Of course this is due to the fact that in 99 out 100 programs, O'Reilly has no argument on which to base his rants, something that quickly becomes apparent to even the most casual viewer of his program. Frequent libertarian guests such as Congressman Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano routinely rip O'Reilly's warped neoconservative screeds to shreds, which is why O'Reilly never lets any of his guests who disagree with him (i.e., most of them) finish a sentence; to do so would expose him as the acerebral bloviator that he clearly is. Think of him as the Morton Downey, Jr. of “serious” cable news networks (complete with occasional outbursts of profanity, as this off-air clip from May, 2208 shows). While this is not Judge Napolitano's first appearance on O'Reilly's program, it ought to be his last. To appear again on again O'Reilly's program is to confer upon it a respect and dignity it doesn't deserve.

The subject of O'Reilly's “interview” was the impending criminal trial in New York of the self-confessed “planner” of the 911 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and several of his associates, recently captured in Pakistan and extradited to United States. O'Reilly, like the rest of his neocon cohorts, is dead set against the idea of trying these men in U.S. civilian courts, quite possibly due to the fact that he, like the government he professes to hate but in fact worships, is horrified at the prospect of such a trial forcing the U.S. government to product evidence of the men's guilt that it doesn't have. Judge Napolitano, a man of great judicial experience, attempted to explain to O'Reilly why he thought that it was absolutely the proper course of action to try these men in civilian court. O'Reilly, true to form, and horrified at the idea of being made to look the idiot that he is, cut the judge off mid-sentence during each answer, liberally and patronizingly firing off his favorite term, “pinhead”, in an attempt to demean the judge. It didn't work, as the judge maintained the calm, dignified composure for which he is well known, making O'Reilly look again like the classless thug he is. While O'Reilly apparently shocked many viewers with his deprecatory dismissal of the Constitution and the rights that it guarantees everyone accused of a crime by the government (even neoconservative fascists who despise it and would deny its protections to those they hate), that really didn't alarm me at all, and shouldn't have alarmed anyone who has seen O'Reilly in action even once. Hatred of the Constitution is, after all, a key tenet of the neocon creed, their loud and belligerent assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. What should horrify every decent American who values liberty and the rule of law is that a crass thug like O'Reilly represents not only the reigning Establishment (whatever its partisan label), but a huge percentage of the compliant, belligerent, bigoted, ignorant television-fed sheeple who allow it keep its grip on and expand its power.

I truly look forward to the day when O'Reilly is compelled to appear on someone else's program and gets a taste of his own verbal medicine. Alas, that's unlikely to happen, and for two reasons. First, O'Reilly is far too much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt coward to allow himself to be given his own medicine, especially in a venue not under his complete control. Second, I'm hard pressed to think of a reputable talk news show host as classless and tactless on air as O'Reilly, which would be
a prerequisite to any such "medication." I guess we can always dream, though, can't we?

Meanwhile, let us all continue to support Judge Napolitano, who has apparently garnered such high viewer ratings on his internet Freedom Watch program that Fox is considering promoting his show to the Fox News channel (thanks to the Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob Hornberger for this update). What a coup that would be! It would be even sweeter if O'Reilly's ratings tanked at the same time to the point where his show was canceled.

Again, we can always dream!

Chicago Reminds Its 911 Dispatchers That Agents of the State Get Special Privileges

Two Chicago 911 dispatchers are in hot water for failing to promptly dispatch help to a Chicago cop under fire from (rival) gang members, forcing him to “fend for himself.”

Hey, Officer Oinky: Welcome to our world!

Note in the article how Chicago's Director of Emergency Management, Ray Orozco, recites the typical “nothing to see behind that curtain, folks” routine by refusing to identify either of the two dispatchers or disclosing the length of their unpaid suspensions (if they had been cops who had murdered a citizen without reasonable cause, they'd be getting a paid vacation). It never fails to amaze me how tenaciously the State's bureaucrats work to defend their own, even while claiming to “punish” them, usually with paid vacations (a.k.a. “suspensions”), verbal reprimands, or other insults to the public. Equally breathtaking is the idea that a system rife with systemic corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence can somehow change its stripes in a split second and act like a paragon of efficiency and valor when one of the State's privileged elite needs its services.

Just how inept is Chicago's emergency response system in answering citizen calls for assistance? According to the Chicago Sun-Times' Fran Spielman in an article published in March of this year, backlogged 911 calls have simply been “disappearing” due to “glitches” in the service's computer system, which the Midwestern Corruption Capital spent more than six million dollars to upgrade. Of course technology has not been the only culprit; human negligence has plagued the system in equal measure, with disastrous results. Just ask Brigitte Biver, who did the responsible thing by calling the city's 311 (non-emergency response) number to report dangerous and illegal fireworks exploding over her home, only to be transferred to the city's 911 emergency number, one of whose operators laughed hysterically at her before telling her to call back later, hanging up on her without even taking her information. Biver apparently never filed a complaint with the city about this dangerously unprofessional behavior on the part of the city's first responders. She probably learned through life's experiences that doing so seldom ever leads to any form of corrective action and in any case probably didn't think that the events surrounding her call merited the extra wasted effort. One can only imagine what would have happened had she been calling about a life-or-death emergency.

But Ms. Biver's case was indeed a joke compared to a 2001 incident involving the death of 19-year-old Douglas Gant, an asthmatic teenager whose mother called 911 three times to get help as her son was gripped by an asthma attack that was suffocating him. Each time, 911 emergency services either did not answer the phone or, finally, after 26 rings of the phone, refused to provide Mrs. Gant with emergency CPR instructions for her son, who was in a state of respiratory arrest. The Gant family sued the city for $50 million dollars, using as precedent a 1997 civil lawsuit against the city in which survivors of a 59-year-old man who bled to death from a leg ulceration after Chicago Fire Department dispatchers twice refused requests for ambulance response successfully sued the city for $3.06 million.

Chicago's emergency services are hardly the worst in the nation, nor are the incidents referenced here aberrations. Still, it's worth noting that the powers-that-be are always willing not only to tolerate, but even actively encourage the status quo until one of their own suffers. If this doesn't further illustrate the essential need for privatized emergency services, in which profit-seeking first-responders either satisfy their customers or go out of business, then I don't know what does. Meanwhile, Officer Oinky appears to have quite successfully “fended for himself” while being chased by rival gangbangers, apparently suffering nothing more than a couple of bullet holes in his cruiser. Would the average Chicago citizen, disarmed by the State of Illinois's gun-grabbing government, have been so lucky?

How Many Howard Unruhs Will Iraqhanistan Produce?

Howard Unruh is dead. The man who set the baseline for spree killers in the second half of the twentieth century died yesterday at age 88 in the Trenton (New Jersey) State Hospital for the criminally insane where he had spent the previous sixty years of his life. For those unfamiliar with his story, Unruh, an army combat veteran of World War II, went on a rampage in his Camden, New Jersey neighborhood on Sunday, September 6, 1949, gunning down and killing 13 people, including three young children, and wounding 16 others in just 10 minutes before running out of ammunition. Here is a detailed narrative of Unruh's life and the killing spree that is about as detailed and accurate as you're likely to see anywhere. Reading it begs the question: How many Howard Unruhs, combat veterans of bloody and insane wars that have driven them to the point of madness, inhabit America today, their pathologies lurking just below the surface, awaiting the right trigger to set them off?

It is almost certain that Unruh suffered pre-existing mental illness that might have eventually led to a murderous outburst regardless of his life experiences (we'll leave aside the question of why the army didn't screen him out during its induction process, a question to which we already know the answer). It also seems obvious from reading his case history that his condition was aggravated by his military experiences and that his killing spree was the direct result of the trauma he experienced as a tank gunner in the U.S. Army's 342nd armored battalion. According to his military record, Unruh, a highly decorated soldier, saw action in Italy, France, and Belgium (including the Battle of the Bulge), all scenes of some of the bloodiest combat in the European theater of operations. By all accounts he was a loner, meaning that it would have been almost impossible for anyone to gauge the affects of his combat experiences on his psyche. Unruh's mother and brother reported, however, that after returning home at war's end he was “a changed person”, always tense and uneasy, not the person he was before enlisting. This is certainly typical of many combat veterans who re-enter civilian life, although very few veterans exhibit pathologies surrounding the readjustment process. Unruh's family also reported that he decorated his bedroom in his mother's home with all of his military insignia and that he had developed an obsession with firearms, even going so far as to set up a firing range in his mother's basement. All of these combined symptoms should have sent up proverbial “red flags.” While the term “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” was unknown at the time, the term “battle fatigue” certainly was and Unruh was exhibiting classic symptoms of it.

So did Unruh receive any form of veteran's medical assistance? There's no evidence from any contemporary sources that he did, though it's likely that even if he had, his symptoms of mental illness would have been overlooked or ignored, standard operating procedure for Veterans Administration medical care both then and now. Even as advanced as psychiatric care is today compared with that available to Unruh's generation, veterans with PTSD or other forms of mental illness are routinely misdiagnosed, sometimes deliberately. Can we really expect that Unruh would have been given help that would have prevented the needless deaths of 13 people?

So what exactly has changed in sixty-plus years? The answer is, not much at all. It's very likely that the army doctors who examined Unruh at the time of his enlistment in 1942 saw signs of his mental illness, but chose to ignore them. After all, the United States Army needed cannon fodder and it didn't make any difference whether or not said raw material was of sound mind. In fact, a cynic could argue that the military powers-that-were very probably preferred recruits with a psychopathic edge, all the better to kill more krauts and nips. Just as today, with the U.S. Army lowering its enlistment standards to admit all sorts of human flotsam, including those with criminal records and psychiatric issues. All the better to kill more ragheads, blowback be damned. Let's see if anyone recalls Santayana's famous dictum the next time a recently-discharged Iraqhanistan Vet recreates the Battle of Falluja on Main Street USA.

Red(Neck) State Rethuglican Chickenhawks Volunteer to Shed the Blood of Others – Let's Have Them Lead The Charge

It shouldn't surprise us that South Carolina Rethuglican Senator Lindsey Graham is at it again, waving his fist and flapping his gums about waging war against a country that poses no threat to America's national security (but that does pose a very tangible threat to the Amerikan Empire). After all, given the thorough and well-deserved thrashing at the polls and loss of the Oval Office that his party suffered last Winter, ol' Lindsey and his fellow Rethuglican warmongers have to distract the sheeple's attention from the economic misery that he and his fellow Bushtards helped bring about. Apparently he and fellow redneck Rethuglican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia hope to do just that by demanding that Amerika, rather than Israel, have the “honor” of launching a first strike against Iran “if necessary*.” One would think that the Rethugs would've gotten the message in no uncertain terms last November that We the People are tired of playing their war games, but apparently Lindsey and Sax didn't get that memo. But now that they've anted up to fire the first salvo against their latest imaginary foe, let's see what assets of their own they plan to put on the line when the shooting starts and what they can do to carry their share of the burden they wish to impose on the rest of us.

In Graham's case, it might not be entirely fair to refer to him as a “chickenhawk”, since he did actually serve in the armed forces. We see from his official U.S. Senate biography that he served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) lawyer (not exactly G.I. Joe or a Top Gun fighter pilot who can claim actual combat experience) between 1982 and 1988, followed by service in the South Carolina Air National Guard in the same capacity until 1994 when he was elected to the House of Representatives. Graham's Wikipedia biography also reports that he served a brief (two-week) reserve stint in 2007 in Iraq, where he worked on “detainee and rule-of-law issues” and that he also served in Afghanistan during the August 2009 Senate recess. Both of these “deployments” make a mockery of the long (minimum of six months, maximum of indefinite and open-ended), arduous, dangerous, and unconstitutional overseas deployments of national guardsmen, who, unlike the junketing Graham who had full and open-ended authority to set his own agenda and terms of service, have no choice in whether or not they deploy or for how long. Indeed, the fact that Graham was no longer an active member of the Air Force reserve serves as sufficient proof that these “deployments” were exercises in tax-payer subsidized frivolity and hubris, political publicity stunts to provide him with cover for his role in the subversion of constitutional due process for detainees and his underhanded dealings on behalf of the military-industrial complex that no doubt contributes heavily to his campaign war chest. Now that Graham wants to spread the disaster that he and his fellow Rethuglicans started in Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran, Pakistan, and beyond, it's time to give him a chance to put his money where his mouth is.

So, Lindsey, if you want to see Amerika fire the first shot at Iran, I suggest that you resign your Senate seat, demand your way back onto active duty in the Air Force, and roger up to deploy to the CENTCOM theater of operations in advance of the first shots being fired. Better yet, demand to be given a front-line command of a combat unit that will be involved in leading the initial air strikes on Tehran or any other Iranian targets chosen by your MIC buddies. None of this REMF (rear-echelon motherfucker) stuff for you, pal. Just think: your posterity, should you not survive the first few days of hostilities, will have the warm and fuzzy feeling from knowing that, like great emperors of bygone eras, you donned your battle armor and led your troops into the battle you so desperately wanted to see fought, making the ultimate sacrifice along with them. Everyone will then know for certain that you fought for a righteous cause that you truly believed in, rather than a selfish, arrogant, imperialist adventure funded by special interest groups. Now's your chance to prove it, Lindsey.

Saxby Chambliss, on the other hand, has no such cover. Ol' Sax epitomizes the term “chickenhawk.” Like his fellow Rethuglican and Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Sax “had other priorities” when it came time to donning a blue or green uniform and answering his country's call. Sax was the lucky beneficiary of five student deferments during the Vietnam War era. Ultimately, Sax managed to convince his draft board that “an old football knee injury” while in college made him unfit for service and was given a sixth and final deferment, this time on medical grounds. Of course Sax conveniently neglects to mention any of this in his biography on his official Senate website. Go figure.

Given the unchecked and incestuous arrogance of Washington, D.C., particularly that club of elitist criminals known as the U.S. Senate, it completely stands to reason that someone with not only no military experience, but with a documented history of evading military service would be named to serve not only on the Senate Armed Services committee, but on the “Intelligence” committee as well. This goes a long way in explaining, among other things, why the events of 9/11/01 caught that element of the U.S. armed services responsible for domestic security totally off guard, even after several of the nation's intelligence agencies made it clear that an attack was imminent. In a real democracy, ol' Sax would have been tossed out of office on his ass, or at a minimum would have had some serious 'splaining to do.

But let's pretend to be generous and give ol' Sax another chance to prove himself and to put his money where his mouth is. Speaking of Sax's mouth, he apparently put his foot in it, big time, a couple of months after the 9/11 attacks by telling a group of emergency first-responders in Valdosta, Georgia that he though a great solution to America's new-found “terrism” problem, at least at the local level, would be "turning the Sheriff loose to arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line." Amazing, isn't it, how loudmouthed, belligerent rednecks who dodge the draft always love to play the role of tough guy from inside a phalanx of armed bodyguards or within a comfy Washington, D.C. office? Anyway, let's give Sax a chance to fulfill his fantasy.

We couldn't very well put Sax in a military uniform. Not only is he much too old, he very likely also couldn't shut his mouth long enough to listen to someone who would try to tell him something that will save his life and prevent others around him from getting killed too. Given his stereotypical redneck affinity for belligerent authority that hides behind a badge, I recommend that we make Sax the Sheriff of Iran after the imperial Amerikan troops have landed and the occupation has begun, much like L. Paul Bremer during the early stages of the Iraq occupation. “Sheriff of Iran” - that title sure has a nice fairytale-like ring to it, doesn't it? Imagine the fun Sax will have in arresting all of those Shi'ite Muslims that have had the audacity to cross the county line into his new fiefdom. He'd be the perfect person to fill the job: a draft-dodging coward who blusters loudly, never fights his own battles, and uses proxies to inflict pain, injury, and loss upon others (a perfect representative of the Amerikan Empire). Sax would have made the perfect small-town Georgia sheriff if he hadn't bribed his way into someone's law school five decades ago, so why not give him a job that makes the best (or worst) use of what little talent he has? Sure, it's likely that them-thar Shi'ite Muslims will shoot back at ol' Sax, probably eventually putting him in a pine box. But hey, if you have to go out, why not go out in a blaze of glory, especially as warrior in the holy war against terrism?

The General and the Sheriff – two new titles for Graham and Chambliss that match their arrogant imperial ambitions. If these two cretins wish to attack Iran, an act that will certainly result in destabilizing the entire Middle East and Southwest Asia region, causing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of deaths and sending oil prices through the stratosphere while causing the dollar's destruction, then they need to feel the full effects of their decision personally. Since they wish for the rest of us to put our economic futures and our nation's survival at risk, not to mention asking more troops to put their lives needlessly on the line, asking them to put their own lives and fortunes where their mouths are is certainly not unreasonable. So how about it, guys? Are you still going to let them call you “chickenhawks?”

(*Would anyone care to wager just how loosely Graham and Chambliss would define the term “necessary” for their purpose in this context?)

A State-Worshiping “Evangelical Christian” Church Might Be Turning Over a New Leaf

My mother reported indignantly in an email to me today that her church's new pastor and staff have prohibited her, my father, and some of their war-worshiping neocon fellow congregants from maintaining a “Support the Troops” booth in front of the sanctuary on Sunday mornings. I confess that I have no idea what is behind this. For all I know it could be that they're taking up too much space in the lobby, or maybe some fragile egos have been bruised (today's “churches” are chock full of such, to the same degree as society at large). Or maybe, just maybe (though I doubt it), the new pastor might have undergone a spiritual epiphany in which he came to realize that “supporting the troops” and by extension the immoral and constitutional war(s) they're fighting is not exactly in harmony with the messages contained in the Gospels (*Gasp!* Someone who actually reads and takes to heart the Four Gospels – say it ain't so!) Maybe the new pastor thinks that it would be better to reach out to the troops by telling them to lay down their arms and spread the message of Christ's love to those whom “their country” hates and who, to hear “their politicians” tell it, want to “destroy us and our way of life.” Did not Jesus, after all, command us to love our enemies? Maybe the new pastor believes that supporting people who want to love Arabs and Afghans is preferable to supporting people who want to kill them.

Well, Mom swears that she and her war-worshiping friends are “not going to go away”and that she'll take on anyone who tries to stop her.

Hey, Mom, why don't you and Dad just go find another church? The metropolitan area that you live in has thousands of them, at least one of which is sure to mirror your state-worshiping, warmongering beliefs. But that's right, I forgot: Neocons believe, like the “liberals” they allegedly despise (but whose direct ideological descendants they are) that their way is the only way and that all who dissent must be forced to follow. Besides, stirring up Scheisse is much more fun that doing the right thing.

While the odds are not good, I sincerely hope that what is happening at this church is the beginning of a return to a true scripture-focused mission, one that castes aside temporal politics and focuses on nourishing the soul. It's long past time that this happened. Let a few little trees sprout!

Could Iran Be Egging The U.S. Into War (And Can Anyone Blame Them)? (UPDATE: 10/2/09)

The usual suspects inside the Imperial Capitol have been belching up a new round of belligerent noises against Iran this week following revelations –based on deliberate disinformation-- that Iran has constructed a “secret” facility for constructing weapons-grade nuclear material. I won't go into the details here of how this charge is transparently false (see the IAEA's official director's report for a debunking of this claim). I will, however, lay down the theory that the Iranian regime is capitalizing on and feeding the neocon-driven hysteria in hopes that Rome-on-the-Potomac will launch an offensive war against their country.

I can just hear the derisive snorts in response to that suggestion. “Are you insane? Why would Iran commit and act of national suicide by provoking the United States into a war that it can't possibly win?”

The answer is very simple: a war with Iran will hasten, if not quickly result in, the Amerikan Empire's collapse.

It is true that an offensive war against Iran would begin badly for the Iranian side, probably resulting in the bombing of major Iranian cities, ports, oil, and nuclear power facilities for starters, followed at some point by a full-scale ground forces invasion of Iranian territory, either from Iraqghanistan (do forgive me this humorously cynical synthesis of our current quagmires), amphibiously from the North Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf, or some combination of both. It is certain that hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of Iranians will suffer in the process and that U.S. tactical objectives will be met in a matter of weeks, just as they were in the Mess in Potamia next door before it became a second Vietnam. Following this, I expect that the Obamunist, he of no military experience and with a highly flimsy credibility rating among the American Chickenhawk Class, will exuberantly exploit what he will be led to believe is “victory!” Like his equally simian predecessor when he appeared on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the Obamunist will probably also equally enthusiastically declare “mission accomplished” after just enough troops have ensconced themselves inside Persia to make it look like another imperial outpost in the Fertile Crescent. But the Iranians have some insurmountable advantages over their Amerikan foe.

For all of the flatulence eructing from Rome-on-the-Potomac like gas after a chili cook-off about the possible first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. or its Israeli master, both Iran and RotP (and surely Tel Aviv too) know that Amerika is completely without moral standing in the rest of the world's eyes to do this. For all of the head-bobbing by Pax Americana's European satraps, for all of their imitative chest thumping calling for the maximum sanction against the mullahs of Tehran, everyone knows that the nuclear option is off the table. This is especially the case when one considers that Russia and China, the emerging new superpowers of the post-Amerikan age, are so close to and so heavily invested in Iran's economy and infrastructure. Neither the Bear nor the Dragon, flush with a surplus of Amerika's fiat dollars (albeit of declining value), much of which they have put to work inside Iran, are about to see their investments go up in a mushroom cloud. Both will act very quickly to put the rogue Amerikan regime in its place should even a serious hint of nuclear “first strike” make its way into official conversation, and Iran knows this.

Notwithstanding all such talk from the neoconservative wing of the Amerikan warmongering faction, the response from neither Russia nor China is likely to be military. Unlike the belligerent pea brains inside the D.C. Beltway, who seem incapable of imagining (or respecting) any other kind of threat, both Russia and China realize the inherently uneconomic, destabilizing, and counterproductive nature of military action against the U.S. Holding all of the economic cards in the era of a collapsing U.S. economy, Russia and China's reaction to U.S. aggression against their interests in Iran will be economic, and very much more devastating than a military strike. China is very likely to finally dump the dollar and begin a series of trade embargoes against the U.S. in the form of export restrictions that will very quickly bring what little remains of the U.S. retail economy to its knees. Russia, though with much less economic leverage over Amerika, can still wreak havoc on Amerika's oil lifeline by possibly shutting off flows of oil from Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Black Sea or the Mediterranean, disrupting the international energy markets, sending petroleum prices through the stratosphere, causing a worldwide oil shortage and skyrocketing prices that might just deliver the coup d' grace blow to the U.S. economy (and certainly destroying what little of its industrial infrastructure remains). Once again, Iran benefits from the fallout while seeing the Amerikan bully castrated in the process.

Israel, Amerika's overlord, might very well blackmail or strong-arm the Obama Administration into letting it initiate hostilities against Iran, or might very well use an American “first strike” as cover to launch a nuclear first strike of its own. Either way, any gains from such a strike will be chimerical and short-lived. Dependent upon Amerikan taxpayer largesse (as well as Amerikan-subsidized oil) for its very existence, not to mention its regional military might, Israel's military muscle will turn to jello as soon as the dollar upon which such might is sustained collapses. Unless the Israeli government has invested in an alternate international currency or large quantities of precious metals, it is as doomed as its Amerikan vassal, and even if it does shift its currency away from the dollar (after abandoning it in the manner of a parasite that abandons its host's carcass after sucking it dry and to death), the idea that it will find another host to sustain it in the style that it was accustomed to while feeding off of its Amerikan host is ludicrous beyond belief. In short, Israel, once goading Amerika into initiating hostilities against Iran, perhaps even launching the opening salvo, will disappear, stand down, and sit on the sidelines, allowing its Amerikan vassal to absorb the losses, costs, and defeat before collapsing itself.

It is difficult to say when the final collapse of U.S. economic and military might will occur in the wake of an outbreak of war with Iran, but if events unfold as I've just described, Amerika will be incapable of even mounting the defense of its own borders from within its own territory, let alone projecting imperial power abroad. With the dollar reduced to something less valuable than Monopoly[TM] money, the ability of the Empire to maintain its legions, to equip them with technology, fuel, weapons, and supplies will vanish. It is entirely possible that the those serving in the imperial legions will find themselves in a predicament similar to that of their Roman antecedents of two millenia ago – stuck in a foreign and hostile country with no way to get back home. This assumes that there will even be a “home” to get back to, as the United States that they left might no longer exist, having broken apart or launched into civil war as the national economy collapses. Again, Iran benefits in every way.

Every aspect of this dismal scenario benefits both the mullahs who rule Iran and the Iranian people themselves. First they suffered for two and a half decades at the hands of an Amerikan-imposed tyrant. Then, no sooner did they throw off this tyrant's rule, they had their country invaded and ravaged by another Amerikan puppet who ruled their western neighbor (remember him, Mr. "Weapons of Mass Destruction?"). In the three decades since, they have been threatened, bullied, and sanctioned without letup. Like most of the rest of the planet, they're past sick and tired of Amerikan arrogance and are eager to bait Amerika into not only biting off more than it can chew, but into making it fatally choke on the ultimate geopolitical and economic bone. Given the egotistical demons that rule Amerika and the unwavering, if pathetically unrealistic and misguided faith that they place in its war machine, the Iranians are soon likely to get their wish and their vindication.

Go ahead, Amerika – make Iran's day. The Iranians will have the last laugh.

UPDATE, October 2, 2009: Apparently I am not the only one who envisions the scenario I describe above. No less a luminary than the incomparable Congressman Ron Paul sees the Chinese as the primary beneficiary of a U.S. strike on Iran, with an attendant collapse of the U.S. dollar as the Chinese dump it as the world's reserve currency. See this summary of Ron's interview with (the despicable, but sometimes cogent) Glenn Beck for his full analysis. (Thanks to today's LewRockwell.com for the link.)