False Humanitarianism

False Humanitarianism

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Some time later today, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is supposedly going to deliver a letter to the United Nations—a letter that is addressed to the American people.

OPORD Analytical predicts that this lengthy letter will announce Iran’s “intentions” to “save” the United States from any more “bloodshed” in Iraq, if the American people will just allow Iran to help them without the consent of the Bush Administration. The letter will also state that the reason that Iran is not getting a fair shake in the international community is because of President Bush’s aggression against Iran’s nuclear program, and that is what has kept the Persian regime from trying to help America in Iraq. It is basically going to be a letter that blames President Bush while asking the American people to help Iran blame Bush since Iran has no “ill intentions” towards America and American concerns over Iranian nuclear activities and development are not based on “legitimate” security concerns. All the American people have to do is to not be alarmed over the Iranian retaking of the Rheinland (Iran’s nuclear program), and everything will be fine, because Iran will save us in Iraq.

We have seen all of this before in history, except Iran will not tangle with the United States until it adds nuclear weapons to its military arsenal.

Islamic fundamentalism and the remaking of the global order are derived from the collapse of communism. Former Soviet-block nation-states and their governments kept tight control over Islamic groups and Islamic revolutionary movements during the Cold War because most fundamentalist Islamic centers of power existed in the former Soviet-block. When Soviet control over these regions collapsed, no force of government or international pressure was in place to provide a just restraint upon radical Islam.

Now radical Islam wants to seize global power. It is divided into two groups, a conservative Wahabbi sect of revolutionary Islam that includes terrorist organizations such as the Islamic Jihad and al Qai’da and finds sympathy from political wings such as Sunni Baathists in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The second group is the Shai sect (Shiites) founded in Persia (Iran) and includes terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. While these two different political groups in Islam want to control the emergence of the Caliphate system, make no mistake that they are unified in destroying the Great Satan and the State of Israel. That means while they are enemies amongst themselves over their religion, they are willing to shelve their disagreements if they get a chance to hurt America.

So as the Iranian president extends his olive branch to the American people via a letter he has written and will be delivering to the United Nations, his country has been supplying Shiite terrorist forces in Iraq with laser-activated anti-tank mines to kill US forces there. Iran’s agent of revolution in Iraq, Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadir, is trying to dismantle the government of Iraq and kill as many American soldiers as his forces can possibly accomplish. This means that if the Iranian president was sincere about helping the United States, he would order Al-Sadir to stand his militia down and return to the Iraqi government and help stabilize Iraq.

The Islamic forces working against the United States and democracy then are great deceivers.

Deception and the ignoring of responsibilities to humanity are not limited to radical Islam. In Europe, NATO (The North Atlantic Treaty Organization) alliance members have been active in trying to avoid this “American war”. When NATO agreed to help the United States and Britain in Afghanistan, for example, some NATO countries refused to allow their military forces to be deployed to areas of Afghanistan that were declared to be “too hostile”. What this means is that a military force deployed to a war zone is being parceled out in terms of responsibility and risk—some states forced to assume more risk than others. Countries such as Britain, Canada and the United States assume the full risk, while other countries in NATO hang out in the rear with the gear. Such is the nature of the current NATO alliance, and Europe’s individual nation-state response to “America’s war”.

The dangerous geopolitical mistake that is being made here is that Europe believes, as ridiculous as it sounds, that the war against Islam is not the west’s war against that ideology but America’s war. European desire to avoid military expenditures at any cost is also a major factor in those nation-states’ decisions to deploy military forces and how those forces are utilized. By not taking any casualties, by avoiding risk, many NATO alliance members can say they helped in the War on Terrorism, but they are also doing it on the cheap.

One must ask then, for what utility is the NATO alliance? Is the NATO alliance comprised of member countries that are stuck in the thinking of the Cold War? We know that when humans gather together and form alliances, a “club” atmosphere can appear with all of the perks and privileges involved. A war would upset that balance as countries were forced to go to their people and tell them that they would be required to contribute some of their own to defend the west. That obviously becomes more difficult since Europe has defined this war as being America’s war alone, and European states have also criticized Britain every step of the way for assisting the United States.

Then there are the radical socialist politicians in Europe who are just standing by waiting for European governments to contribute soldiers from NATO to help in the War on Terrorism. With peace (ignoring responsibility) being an immediate appeal to European voting-blocks, the politician that decides to help the United States in the War on Terrorism, even through the NATO alliance, runs the very real risk of losing their jobs at the next election. Western national security then is placed in jeopardy because of the narrow self-serving interests of the new “political class”, the class of politician that has emerged in the late 20^th Century that is not serving in the real interests of the “state”, but the politician that desires only to seize and keep power for themselves alone. Winston Churchill was a rare breed, and a form of politician in short supply outside of Britain.

European declarations to the world about their concerns over humanitarianism are just as confusing as their lifetime bureaucratic centers of governance. The United Nations can’t even agree to a very basic definition of terrorism, let alone come together to try and figure out ways to defend from it. In Darfur, millions of people are being slaughtered by the Sudanese government and its militias, but European humanitarianism is nowhere to be seen.

European humanitarianism then may be false humanitarianism.

In order to be a real humanitarian, there must be individual judgment. Human beings must be able to judge whether or not evil exists and only then can evil be confronted and defeated. An emerging fascism is appearing in the west that makes it “politically incorrect” to be “judgmental” about such matters. There is a claim of genocide in Sudan? That is being judgmental. You say radical Islam exists? That is being judgmental. You want NATO to deploy military forces to help you in America’s War on Terrorism? You dare make us judgmental?

And so the European logic dictates.

If you consider this psyop, it is pretty clever. When nation-states can claim that there is no such thing as evil, then there is no need to deploy military forces to confront claims of evil and all that money can be spent instead on socialist programs to make the individual politician more powerful at the expense of the national security and longevity of the nation-state. The politician also ensures their subsequent reelection into political office forever because it is the perfect arrangement. The state requires nothing from the people other than to be recipients of state-sponsored socialism, and in return for that the politician claims heroic standing in the history of the state as legacy. The politician is also guaranteed perpetual reelection in a supposed democratic state.

Not even the politburo had such an absolute hold on power.

Inside each of us however, we can sense that judgment is a necessary human character trait. We know that genocide is evil. The organized killing of human beings based upon their race, religion or any other factor by the state is evil. I sit in judgment. Iranian aspirations to develop nuclear weapons to destroy the State of Israel and to target European cities are also evil. I proudly sit in judgment of that truth. When European cities are brought under the Iranian nuclear influence, European socialist states will be forced to abandon their socialist-economy constructs in favor of national security constructs. Again, I judge, and I judge correctly.

There is a developing energy in the international community that is potentially leading to an increase in global conflict. OPORD Analytical will continue to update its subscribers about these developments as they emerge.

Christopher Farmer

MS, National Security

To comment about this article, please use our forum!