Beating the war drum

To the casual observer, it might seem utterly ludicrous to imagine that the administration is seriously contemplating yet another invasion of a Middle Eastern nation when it is still losing troops every week in an occupied, but unpacified Iraq. But the war drums are again being beaten by the talking heads and the signs are unmistakable.

One of the most reliable indicators is the inevitable flying of the Hitler flag. Slobodan Milosovic was the first in the recent string of Second Comings of Hitler; after the Serbian surrender the dread title was passed on to Saddam Hussein. Now that he has been unceremoniously removed from power, (and following a brief consideration of fellow Axis of Evil member, North Korea's Kim Jong Il), Hitlerhood has been finally been conveyed upon Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

TRENDING: Capitol authorities on high alert Thursday over 'real inauguration' threat

Other obvious signs include Iran pulling its funds out of Swiss banks before they can be frozen. And closer to home, a blog regular who often drives on a major interstate highway recently made the following comment:

I travel regularly for business and have noticed a marked increase in flatbeds hauling new Humvees, tanks and armored vehicles over the past couple of weeks. Something is going on – haven't seen this much since the war started.

Unfortunately, the public rationale for what appears to be an incipient war is nearly as nonsensical as those used to excuse the last one. We must attack Iran, we are informed, or those mad mullahs will attack Israel! And certainly, insane or not, the Iranians have been rattling their sabers in that direction. But have we not provided more than $64 billion in military aid over the years for just that very purpose? If all of those F-16s and M-16s and Sidewinders and Patriots do not permit Israel to defend herself against a regional military threat, then what was the point of providing it in the first place?

And if the mere possession of active nuclear power plants is grounds for an invasion, why are we not looking to invade Taiwan? Or Finland, for that matter? It seems strange to argue that Iran, a nation that was civilized long before America was discovered, is significantly less stable than either North Korea or Pakistan. One begins to wonder if there will soon be an incident like the sinking of the battleship Maine or the Gulf of Tonkin, to which an American invasion of Iran will be the only reasonable response.

As I suggested in November 2002, one of the few proposed explanations for the Iraqi invasion that has held up over time was the preservation of American financial hegemony, which had been threatened by Saddam Hussein's decision to require payment in euros for Iraqi oil rather than U.S. Federal Reserve Notes. I can't help but note that although there have been rumors about the readiness of Iran's nuclear program for years, the war drums only began beating in earnest not long after Iran announced the establishment of the Iran Oil Bourse, an alternative oil market traded in euros.

Is it possible that the Bush administration – not exactly innocent of the oil industry, its financing and the subsequent ramifications for the national economy – is regarding this as anything less than an act of economic war? And is it possible that the federal government would simply accept this major shift of financial power from the Federal Reserve to the European Central Bank? I am skeptical.

While a recent poll showed that 57 percent of Americans believe that an invasion of Iran would be justified, the media did not report that 52 percent likewise believe that an invasion of Canada would be equally justified and that 84 percent believe that an invasion of France is not only justified, but long overdue. Let's face it: A sizeable minority of Americans believe that invading any country at any time is our national birthright by virtue of our superpower status and inherent human decency.

And this boldness of national spirit is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a certain, straightforward honesty, even beauty, in the American breed of patriotism. Of course, that does not mean it is always wise for a nation's leaders to freely make use of that spirit, lest it be dissipated and unavailable for when it is truly needed

So, if the administration is prepared to plunge the nation into its third foreign invasion in five years, the president owes it to the American people to be honest with them about what they actually are fighting for. It may be true that war is required to preserve America's unique and privileged financial position in the world, and if that is indeed the case, George Bush should remember that this is not a decision for the American president to make, but the American people.