Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

In the Crosshairs of Preventive War

Sara Wood | 21.03.2006 22:14 | Anti-militarism | Birmingham

March 2006 Update of Bush Pre-emptive War National Security Strategy Targets Iran:
An Interview with Preventive Warriors director Michael Burns

In the Crosshairs of Preventive War

March 2006 Update of Bush Pre-emptive War National Security Strategy Targets Iran:
An Interview with Preventive Warriors director Michael Burns

By Sara K. Wood, University of Birmingham UK

- Michael, your film on the National Security Strategy of 2002, the document that served as the official written basis for the pre-emptive war policy of the White House, came out in May of 2004. What’s happened since then?

Several things have happened worth paying attention to. The first is that we have continued to wage a war in Iraq that has turned parts of that country into the terrorist havens George Bush told us were there before the war but weren’t. Since the film came out, over a thousand coalition troops have died, and, according to conservative estimates, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered, putting the country on the brink of civil war (or actually in one according to Iraqi former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi). Along side these awful events, none of the lies that the war was based on have been apologized for, from Bush’s assertion that the war’s purpose is to “uphold the integrity of the United Nations” which he hates and acted against the wishes of, to Jack Straw’s famous line that the “single question” in Iraq is ridding the country of weapons of mass destruction. Really? Why are British soldiers still fighting then? Because as we know that question has long been settled.

Another important thing that’s happened is that defense spending all around the world is way up, including places like Russia and China. This tends to happen when the world’s biggest power says that military solutions conceived by it and it alone will settle major world problems. The message of lawlessness is clear to the rest of the world, and they respond the way you would expect. They’ve learned the lesson from Iraq that guns speak louder than words.

So these are important, albeit profoundly frightening developments that have occurred or were underway and have continued since the documentary came out.

- What did you make of the new updated 2006 National Security Strategy (NSS) document, the first since the NSS of 2002?

In the March 16, 2006 unveiling of the new National Security Strategy, President Bush didn’t revise the stated policy of pre-emption, of attacking another country first (an action better described as preventive rather than pre-emptive, as they’re not quite interchangeable). The new NSS says the policy "remains the same,” and is a key component of US strategy in the "early years of a long struggle,” presumably the endless war on terror.

Specifically the new NSS elaborates by saying, "If necessary… under long-standing principles of self defense, we [the US government] do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack…. When the consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize."

But here we face the same logical breakdown as we did with the 2002 version of the National Security Strategy.

Pre-emption, attacking someone before they have the opportunity to attack you, is nothing new. It’s a long-standing and widely accepted strategy employed by law enforcement against criminals, for example. With a pair of extremely important qualifications. The legitimate use of it depends on two things: the evidence of intent of the other to attack, and the capability of the other to attack. These qualifications mean all the world of difference. They separate legitimate self-defense measures to repel an attack from arbitrary use of force whenever you feel like it. Bush declares his right to use pre-emption divorced from these qualifications, under the guise of self-defense.

Returning to a sane use of the word pre-emption (rather than Bush’s, which is just another way of saying might equals right), I recommend Nicholas Berry’s look at the new 2006 NSS. Considering intent to attack and capability to attack as moral and legal necessities to a pre-emptive strategy, he asks: “What countries might attack the United States or its allies? Those with capabilities – Russia and China – have absolutely no intent. Those that might like to develop an intent – North Korea, Syria, and Iran – have either no or insufficient capabilities. Thus they have not developed any intention to attack.

The militarism enters the picture when Bush can declare both intent and capability while manufacturing evidence for both. He did so with Iraq. He is doing so with Iran. Iran in the NSS is identified as the country likely to present the ‘single greatest future challenge to the United States’ and ‘threatens Israel.’ The NSS warns against states that ‘produce fissile material that can be used to make nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear power program.’ Not mentioned is the fact that IAEA inspectors can [find] no evidence that Iran has a weapons program. [But] for Bush, who needs evidence?”

I think Berry is right on the money. And he closes by noting that unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran’s formal military will not crumble, which I think he’s right about as well.

So, to get back to your question, when it comes to the Strategy as a whole, the 2002 version was geared toward Iraq, and this is geared toward Iran with very few changes or additions of substance. And again, as far as preventive war is concerned, there is no revision and certainly no apology for it.

- Iraq was of course the first application of the preventive war strategy. Though the majority of Americans now say the war in Iraq is not worth it, many seem torn about the governmental outcome because you could say that regime changed was welcomed in Iraq. What do you say to the people, including Iraqis of course, who are glad to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein?

Who wouldn’t be glad? If I were Iraqi I would be thrilled that Saddam Hussein is behind bars and 74% of the population is. But let’s look at some other numbers from a 2005 poll of Iraqis undertaken for the UK Ministry of Defense that was leaked to British media:

Between 45 and 65% of Iraqis believe attacks on US and British troops are justified.

82% are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops.

Less than one percent of the population believes that coalition troops are responsible for any improvement in security.

67% feel less secure because of the occupation.

So what do these numbers tell us? They tell us that people hated Saddam but hate occupation too and that they refuse to be occupied by armies with no legitimate presence. They tell us that coalition troops are not welcomed and are part of the problem not the solution, if the opinion of the Iraqi people matters at all (after all the supposed aim is to bring them democracy and to respect their opinion, right?). These numbers also tell us that the way US and UK government officials try to frame the argument over and over again- that no matter what, Iraq today is better than under Saddam- is an absurd, false choice formulation that any child can recognize as a desperate attempt to spin a disastrous war. When your argument is that our mass violence is less worse than someone else’s mass violence, and that the recipients should be thankful not resentful for our reduced level of violence, then you’ve lost any conceivable moral authority or ground to stand on. Comparing two crimes’ severity in order to absolve one is a sick exercise in my opinion, and a purely academic one. They’re both crimes.

- Picking up on Bush, and to play devil’s advocate for a second, if he’s been such a disaster, how could the war continue to be waged, and if confidence in him was shaky from the start, how could the US have followed him to war in the first place?

It’s important to keep in mind how the US built its case for war in Iraq. Lewis Lapham at Harper’s Magazine just wrote an article in which he counted 237 false or misleading statements, 55 by the President himself, where he linked Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Quotes like, in the War on Terror “you can’t distinguish between Ai Qaeda and Saddam.”

So what was the result of this PR offensive that conflated these sworn enemies into a single evil force?

In US opinion polls spanning 2003 to 2004, 76% of those responding said that Saddam Hussein provides assistance to al-Qaeda, with 45% believing that Hussein was personally involved in the attacks of September 11th. Forty-four per cent believed that some or most of the hijackers were Iraqis. And 25% of the US population believed that the US had publicly released evidence linking Iraq to the planning and funding of 9/11. Of course all of these are false. They also make my stomach turn. I can think of nothing more disgraceful than to use what happened on 9/11 for an unrelated political purpose, to use the anger, confusion, and vulnerability as an opportunity to be cashed in on. It’s like spitting on the graves of those office workers, cleaners, clerks, and business people who died in New York and Washington.

With these numbers it should be very clear as to how the war was allowed to start and why it continues. Combine these numbers with a February 2006 Zogby poll that 90% of US troops currently in Iraq think the war is in retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11 and you start to see how reality has been supplanted by government spin and propaganda. Most importantly you see that both US military and public support is based on the goal of preventing another 9/11. But sadly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and our actions in Iraq are making terrorist attacks more likely, having invigorated and swelled the ranks of al-Qaeda.

So in order to understand the war and its origins, as far as US public and political permissibility is concerned, you have to understand the verbal effort to tie Iraq to 9/11 and terrorism, concluding with Colin Powell’s absurd presentation to the UN, and the whole “mushroom cloud over New York is next” statements: all of these “first-wave” public relations efforts. This rhetoric about spreading democracy, it’s important to remember, only surfaced after the supposed foundational pillars of rationale for the war collapsed one after the other. This is the second wave.

- Iran is not Iraq, and of course has a much more robust infrastructure and greater military capability. Despite this, the rhetoric from the Bush Administration on stopping Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power seems to be getting more hostile everyday. Do you see the possibility of a US first-strike attack on Iran?

Well, there are several things to consider. The first thing to look at, I think, is something that’s been slightly overlooked. One reason often put forth as evidence that the US is just posturing and won’t actually attack Iran is that Iran’s capability of retaliation regionally is much stronger and its role in global petro-politics too prominent. But this type of thinking could be a mistake. Remember that before attacking Iraq, there were no shortage of mainstream commentators from multiple sides of the political spectrum who accurately predicted disaster in the country and just the kind of al-Qaeda recruiting exercise it has become. This suggests that logic should not be given too much credence when you’re talking about the Bush Administration. They’ve proven very willing to take massive risks with American dollars and lives in pursuit of their incredibly ambitious aims. Dismissing the possibility that they will attack Iran, therefore, because it doesn’t make sense and may increase violence in the region and beyond is, I think, unwarranted.

The truth is that no one knows what the US will do in Iran. One of the most astute political analysts and public intellectuals in the country, Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies, put together a list of key points to keep in mind that I think are extremely important regarding Iran:

She writes:

- Escalating rhetoric, continued losses in Iraq, Bush's political problems, and an ideologically-driven pursuit of power make the possibility of a U.S. military attack on Iran - however reckless and however dangerous its consequences - a frighteningly real possibility.

- Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has not violated the Treaty. While there appear to be unresolved issues regarding full transparency, its nuclear program, including enriching uranium, is perfectly legal under NPT requirements for non-nuclear weapons states.

- Iran does not have nuclear weapons; even if it is trying to build a nuclear weapons program, it could not produce weapons for five to ten years or more.

- There is a dangerous, unmonitored and provocative nuclear arsenal in the Middle East; it belongs to Israel, not Iran. U.S. hypocrisy and double standards in nuclear policy, accepting Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal and rewarding India's nuclear weapons status while threatening war against Iran and denying its own obligations under the NPT, has undermined Washington's claimed commitment to non-proliferation.

- U.S. officials claim they are not considering an invasion of Iran but "only" surgical air strikes against known nuclear facilities; they have not explained what their military response will be when Iran retaliates, whether against U.S. troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region, against U.S. oil tankers in near-by shipping lanes, or against Israel.

- Global suspicions remain regarding U.S. claims because of Washington's lies leading to the invasion of Iraq, but international conditions regarding Iran are significantly different; many governments appear more willing to consider Iran a "threat."

I think these observations are highly relevant as tension heats up. Personally, I don’t feel confident to venture a guess either way on whether the US will attack Iran. There are persuasive arguments for and against the likelihood. While unelected political operatives in the White House may have fantasies of leaving office by striking the country they hate the most, the possibility of retaliation and unforeseen consequences may prove too risky to Republicans terrified of further domestic political fallout as we move into the 2008 election cycle. So domestic electoral concerns may play a significant role in what happens. Only time, and the extent of the willingness of citizens and politicians to expose lies and argue for peace, will tell.

- When it comes to preventive attacks, often you hear people suggest that to end the suffering of oppressed people in other countries, sometimes our international system fails, and unilateral action is necessary. What do you say to that?

That’s just not how states behave if you look at the world. Just to take a few obvious examples. Look at the number of deaths in The Republic of Congo, 38,000 a month right now according to the BBC. And of course you have Rwanda back in the 90s, 850,000 dead during the presidency of Bill Clinton who ceaselessly repeats these days how much he “loves Africa.” I highly recommend the book Shake Hands with the Devil, Romeo Dalliare’s book on the failure of the world yet again to take action to prevent mass killings in that country. Or take the fact that according to the UN over 29,000 children die everyday of hunger and preventable disease. Or look at Hurricane Katrina in the US last summer. Looking at just these four events, ask yourself, is ending suffering a priority for states that can do anything about it? Or is it more the case that when other interests arise so does the rhetoric about liberating the oppressed?

- As the war continues and potential conflicts loom, where do progressive-minded reformers go from here?

I think the shock of terrorism understandably causes populations to give governments leeway where they wouldn’t otherwise- to respond to and address the situation and increase security. This is what’s happened in the US and UK obviously. But now we see that we are less safe, hatred of Western governments is way up, and terrorism is more likely than ever. So those who so quickly proposed militarist solutions to the terrorist problem have proven themselves failures and their tactics counterproductive in the one arena they were given the benefit of the doubt in- increasing security. The part of the world’s population that gave them benefit of the doubt in this respect is now waking up to the reality that others suspected from the beginning: their choices are making things worse, not better.

I see justice-minded activists’ main job as making sure of something. We must make sure that the betrayal and justified disgust directed at the free-market fundamentalists and war-loving zealots presently in office do not translate into further disengagement with the critical struggle for political reform. Our present leaders want compliance, but if they can’t get it, the next best thing is our tacit agreement out of frustration, it’s for us to give up on politics because of our realization of their incompetence and dishonesty. We can’t let this happen. Political office has to be a centerpiece to long-term democratic renewal. If there could be a wake up call louder than the tragic events of our times for the need for more, not less, political participation with the aim of urgent electoral regime change at home, I don’t know what it could be.

- Thanks very much Michael and congratulations on the continued success with the film.

More about Preventive Warriors is available at its website

Sara Wood


Hide the following 2 comments

This article is a piece of PURE pro-Iran-war psy-ops

22.03.2006 04:29

blah blah
muslim terrorism, muslim terrorism, muslim terrorism, muslim terrorism
blah blah
if Iran has nuclear weapons, we have a right to attack them
blah blah
muslim terrorism, muslim terrorism
blah blah
if Iran has nuclear weapons, we have a right to attack them, and we had better make it a massive attack because they might otherwise fight back

I think that just about sums up the content of the above interview. Standard psy-ops method. Black propaganda of a crude, tried and tested formula. Goebbels would have pointed out that the "crosshair" picture at the top of the article gave away its real purpose. The person that made the article, however, just couldn't resist.

To those of you that are a little confused, I would direct you to Derren Brown's common party trick (see his shows on Channel 4) where he 'persuades' a victim to make a 'free' choice that, in reality, Brown has previously chosen for him/her. The method involves a lot of seemingly innocent chat (like the above article) that contains control words, phrases, and ideas. It is an important part of the method that the chat is seemingly tedious and pointless, so that the victim's focus is accurately directed to the 'hidden' message. If possible, Brown uses powerful visual indicators as well to sell his required choice. The article picture is a key part of this process.

To make a side-observation, this is why ANY attempt by honest anti-war protestors to create icons of Blair's or Bush's heads under a crosshair are immediately attacked and BANNED both by State forces, and by state agents operating as high level protest leadership.

You will notice that the article also gives itself away by aligning itself clearly with the stated aims of Blair and Bush over Iraq, by avoiding ANY powerful attack on Blair and Bush, and by quoting the absolute lowest possible estimate of the harm done during the invasion of Iraq.

See the words WAR CRIME, or CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY? You will NEVER see either of these phrases used against Bush or Blair in articles written by agents working on behalf of the state when attempting to pass themselves off as anti-war.

Blair is not stupid. The billions he spends on psy-ops takes advantage of sixty years of technology progress in the art of Black Propaganda. Those that think they wish to oppose Blair tend to gather in known locations. They will not, as you can easily understand, be persuaded by ANY form of right-wing propaganda. For these people (ie., all of you here), the message MUST be carried in seeming left-wing packages.

TRUST is an essential part of getting people to drop their barriers, so that the REAL message can be delivered. While trolling is commonly used to depress, disrupt, and discourage, the real purpose of the state trolls (who ALWAYS push a mindless right-wing position, not matter how idiotic) is to ensure that you build a MASSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED to find posters that are 'clearly' on your side and can be 'trusted'. People that let you down in the worst possible way will ALWAY be those that you have given your 'trust' to, as commonly illustrated by the various categories of 'conman'. TRUST only guarantees one thing, that you have willingly dropped your barriers. If you are mistaken in your trust, that bad person is able to manipulate you in ways that a distrusted person never could. Given this self-evident fact, who DO YOU think that Blair will use to get his message into YOUR head? Some tedious right-wing troll? Or someone who swears up and down that they are on YOUR side.

Please replace trust with knowledge of propaganda techniques, and an understanding of the rules that Blair's agents ALMOST ALWAYS have to follow. Look at the content of their message VERY carefully. What words get repeated? Which of Blair's stated ideas do they casually accept? Do they have trouble calling Blair a WAR CRIMINAL? Do they fail do describe the attack against Iraq as an AGGRESSIVE WAR (described in the trials of nazi leaders as the SUPREME CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY). Do they imply that if Iran has nuclear weapons, other nations have the right to attack Iran? Do they agree that muslim violence is 'terrorist' and Blair's violence is 'military'? Do they fail to demand that Blair is tried for WAR CRIMES? Do they suggest that Blair's forces desire to leave Iraq? Do they quote the BBC? Do they fail to mention Israeli nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, and the direct role that France, Germany, UK and the US have played (and still play) in providing these genocidal tools to a regime that frequently slaughters humans for the most obscene racist reasons? Do they mention the extent of the US military budget? Do they mention the fact that the US military strategy is one of preparing for war with CHINA?

I have ZERO DOUBT that the above article pushes (or to use the technical magician's term "forces") a clear anti-muslim, pro-Iran-war position. I have ZERO DOUBT that this was the intended purpose of the article. Blair and his agents make weapons out of words just as easily as they make weapons from explosives and hard metals. Sadly, when a person has been wounded by words, it may take them many years to realise what damage has been done to them.

Given how soon Blair's war with Iran is timetabled to begin, ALL so-called left-wing forums are going to be flooded with anti-Iran propaganda disguised as pro. If Blair thinks that this serves a valuable purpose, then rejecting each and every act of black propaganda must, in its own way, serve a counter-purpose. Well, to be frank, I don't really believe this for a second, but fighting a seemingly unwinnable war means that sometimes one must stand solidly behind futile acts, in the hope that one's pessimism is incorrect.


Psych ops?

22.03.2006 18:09

Twilight, I think that your assertion that this entire article is some kind of Blairite psycological operation is a little paranoid. I think you should place more trust in people to come to their own conclusions. I think that when people read an article they do not automatically agree with everything said simply because it generally conforms to their own ideas an opinions.

For example, I read the above article and agreed that it is hypocritical to attack Iran when they have not breached the NPT, there is no evidence yet that they are developing WMDs, and are 8-10 years away if they chose to. The author also highlighted the hypocrisy of the situation given that Israel and the US are in breach of NPT treaties.

However, I did not agree with the author's opinion that pre-emptive attacks are acceptable when a state has intent and capability to attack. His assertion that it is a "long-standing and widely accepted strategy employed by law enforcement against criminals" is also false since a person cannot be convicted of a crime they haven't committed. In my opinion the global community should stand in solidarity against the aggressor, and explore diplomatic solutions rather than an military assault which would harm many innocent people.

I do not think this is 'psych ops' or 'black propaganda' but simply evidence that the author has flaws in some but not all of his arguments. I think it is more constructive to credit and criticise an article on it's merits and downfalls rather than condemn every inch of it as propaganda.


Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
All Regions
South Coast
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
All Topics
Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Public sector cuts
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network

satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs