India should now invade Illinois
Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr
My cousin Todd (yes, the one who writes on True/Slant) woke me with the following question:
If the Bush Doctrine allows for the invasion of a country due to a real or potential threat of terrorism from that country, does that mean that India can invade the US, or at least Illinois?
He was referring, of course, to the fact that a Chicago man, David C. Headley, has been charged with helping to plot the attacks on Mumbai that left 163 people dead and many more injured. Mr. Headley helped the group Lashkar-e-Taiba identify targets, including luxury hotels, a crowded train station, and a Jewish community center.
Mr. Headley was originally arrested in October in connection with attempting to attack a newspaper in Denmark that published cartoons of Muhammed.
Interestingly, even the US government seems willing to admit that terrorists are everywhere, including the US.
Federal officials said the case against Mr. Headley underscored the potential threat posed by American citizens who could use their ability to travel easily across borders in support of such plots.
The assistant attorney general for national security, David Kris, said, “This case serves as a reminder that the terrorist threat is global in nature and requires constant vigilance at home and abroad.”
U.S. Man Accused of Helping Plot 2008 Mumbai Attack – NYTimes.com.
Now, I”m no Dick Cheney, but it seems to me that both India and Denmark have a perfectly legitimate reason to invade the US according to the prevailing concept of US foreign policy, the Bush Doctrine that can now also be referred to as the Bush/Obama Doctrine.
According to the Bush Doctrine, the US has the right to both attack countries that harbor terrorists and also engage in preemptive wars with countries that might pose a threat at some point in the future. It is this doctrine that justified the invasion of Afghanistan as well as the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of the Iraqi regime. No attacks were ever committed by the Afghan government against the US nor by the Iraqis.
So now India and Denmark must invade the US. And how could the US possibly oppose such an invasion? After all, we invented the notion of preemptive war (at least post WWII). But I would advise the India-Denmark coalition to perhaps limit their invasion to Illinois- a flat state and therefore easily controlled. They don’t want to end up with an Afghanistan on their hands.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Of course the argument would be that the U.S. government can be trusted (unlike the Afghanistan or Iraq governments) to hunt down terrorists put them in prison.
Interesting question. Although in theory one could agree, reality is another story. We can’t possibly expect Afghanistan/Pakistan to be effective at capturing people who commit crimes against the US. Both because it can create potential internal political problems as well as the obvious fact that they really don’t have the resources. Here in the US we have those resources AND the political will to do so.
The real question is what are our values as a nation? Do we support killing thousands of innocents in the name of justice for a few? And if we do, how do we define our methods into law and maintain the moral high ground? This is not a black and white issue.
Oh, I think the world trusts the US to “do the right thing.” I mean, what’s not to trust? Destroying the Geneva Conventions; torture of prisoners; extraordinary renditions; etc. In other words, there are probably a lot of people around the world hoping the Indian/Denmark armies invade soon.
Agreed on all points. My question would be how do we merge our desire of maintaining the moral high ground with our need to defend ourselves? Certainly you and I (not that I’m speaking for you) agree that if someone killed one of your loved ones, you would want the perpetrators to be brought to justice. We can agree that if said perpetrators are located in Afghanistan we shouldn’t invade Iraq and kill thousands in the process. Where it gets fuzzy is how do we approach Afghanistan and Pakistan where we know these people are? I don’t think carpet bombing is an acceptable method but what is? Are there acceptable casualties? What do you propose we do?
In response to another comment. See in context »I rather doubt bombing civilians in Afghanistan has brought justice or peace to anyone who lost loved ones on 9/11. Is there a place for special forces, CIA type ops where individuals would be arrested or possibly killed? Sure. But military invasion is different. And who has died in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda operatives? No. My actual suggestion- if I were in charge- end the war. There is no “good” ending to this- just tens and hundreds of thousands of more dead civilians, destroyed lives, and more reasons to hate the US. In order to repair some of the harm the US government has done there, 1/2 of the $100 BILLION funding for the war should be spent supporting NGOs who are building infrastructure and schools. It’s not a good ending, but it’s way better than the alternative.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree we should end the war. Now! I also think we should persue these criminals. IMO the best way is to use special forces combined with local intelligence. The problem with that now, of course, is who would help us without the time honored use of bribery? Nobody. It’s a conundrum.
In response to another comment. See in context »As far as your idea to throw money at NGO’s. Aside from waging this massive war, that would be a total waste. These societies really are about at least 100 years behind the western world. Really. They aren’t going to appreciate our efforts because they have no frame of reference. Until they “see the light” on their own (don’t hold your breath) we shouldn’t waste one dime on them. I would rather see us pour the money into reducing our debt. Then we should spend to help the less fortunate here in our own society. Then we can talk about spending anything on foreign soil.
Invasion? Maybe not. Perhaps Canada will provide India and Denmark with a base for their Predator drones. They can then safely, and surgically, remove suspected terrorists from within American cities. Since we’ve already shown that our system, with all those infernal checks-and-balances and damn Constitutional protections, can’t be counted on to protect Denmark and India from the likes of Headley, we should be OK with this solution. The Indians and the Danes have a right to protect themselves!
In response to another comment. See in context »