Jesus Juice, 9/11, and an Emerging Pre-emptive Nuclear Doctrine at NATO

It was Presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who uttered the words, " I drink a different kind of Jesus Juice, " but likely not in reference to the now-proverbial " Kool Aid, " itself a latent semantic reference to the 1970s Helter Skelter fiasco.

Perhaps 9/11 is to Huck's Jesus Juice, the modern era's proverbial Kool Aid, with the emerging pre-emptive nuclear doctrine now being " floated " by NATO playing the part of protagonist. In other words, without the pre-emptive nuclear option, Iran will soon become a nuclear threat which, given 9/11, bears all of the characteristic resemblance of the kind that would intend to strike with similar atomic force. Hence, as the logic holds, it must be " pre-empted."

Moreover, we recall Dick Cheney's comment after 9/11 regarding the idea about " limited nuclear strikes " being plausible, presumably, again, to deter poltical violence, and that it was Dick Cheney who supported the disbandment of the once-hallowed ABM Treaty.

In this vein, 9/11 becomes, like the WOMDs that Curveball claimed to exist, an idea dispelled by Hans Blix, and, though less forcefully so, likewise by George Tenet and Valerie Plame, the latter once being a clandestine CIA operative before Cheney's office blew her cover; 9/11-as-Kool-Aid becomes pretext for the pre-emptive atomic deterrence of political violence that could only render ever rising tensions with Iran, which could only themselves become greater pretext for the plausibility of first strike nuclear deterrence.

The kind of Jesus Juice most of us who, like Mike, prefer to drink, is probably the kind that sees in an EU constitution, still yet to be ratified, the possibility for a one-state option which will render power to any EU state to block NATO outright, but with particular regard to the use of atomic force, for any reason, particularly preemptively.

But the biggest problem might be Russia, which NATO may be - in light of EU stability concerns and what the republics offer in carrots in the form of petroleum, which is an answer to the kind of EU involvement in the Middle East - the War In Iraq - that may be seen as the actual culprit of the political violence directed at Beslan, Madrid, London and Belgian embassies - inclined to support a Russia whose military may want to pull out of the INF Treaty, again, yet another Cold War staple of counterproliferation.

Is Russia seeking to intimidate NATO into the more forceful, preemptively atomic option that the vast majority of EU states would be unlikely to support, while offering the republics up as carrots ? One can never be sure, but so too did Litvenenko drink a different kind of Jesus Juice.

Or maybe it was the radioactive Kool Aid.

Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

Ian Traynor in Brussels
Tuesday January 22, 2008
The Guardian

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.

Blair urges NATO unity amid Afghan friction

By Jonathan Spicer

TORONTO, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Thursday that NATO must challenge its enemies in Afghanistan firmly and in a united way, despite recent reports of friction among Western countries

Blackwater Used Gas on Iraqis, US Troops

According to the New York Times, Blackwater was running a convoy in 2005 when they ran into trouble near a checkpoint. What do they do? They gas the crowd, with US troops right there. To be fair, this isn’t the kind of gas the Reagan Administration supplied to Saddam Hussein and that he used on his own people.

The Russo-Iranian Nuclear Program

The tragedy is that the Ayatollah appears to have been open recently to making official peace but, he says, that now is not the right time. I'm not quite sure why, but I disagree, as Iraq's leader, Maliki, is a moderate Shiite, which should lend itself to natural stabilization, at least over time.

But the Ayatollah also claims to have made a deal with Washington in 2003 regarding rhe nuclear program, the terms of which he claims Washington reneged on, which is the reason why it restarted. The problem with the nuclear program is that it's not a domestic Iranian issue, but one that's governed by international law and could threaten American troops on Iraqi soil, perhaps not entirely legally.

The other issue with the Iranian nuclear program, which we might call the Russo-Iranian program is the Chechen rebels. If Russia remits from INF with Chechnya a Russian federal state, as Boris Yeltsin argued when he attacked Grozny in 1994, and Iran is to ship uranium to Russia, which may have been a part of the 2003 deal that Iran claims to have made with Washington, the question might be about whether the Chechens could legally possess short to intermediate range nuclear weapons which might even be conceived by some in the international community to be a deterrent to Grozny III.

In other words, what could Russia possibly have in mind when it threatens to pull out of INF and wants to renegotiate adapted CFE ?

The problem with the Russo-Iranian nuclear program has less to do with Iran than it does with Russia, which twice decimated Grozny at a level that approached Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiping out half of its population and may now be implicating Iran in yet another round of Grosnian genocide by inducing Iran to ship uranium over which Iran will lose control once it crosses Russian borders.

Is the Administration telling the Truth about Iran or Trying to Save Face?

This year, the Bush Administration vociferously claimed two rationales for attacking Iran:

1) that Iran had nuclear weapons, which posed an imminent threat;

2) that Iran's government had armed U.S. enemies in Iraq (as opposed to drug lords or other individuals operating in Iran without government approval).

Intelligence and War

Nobody would argue that 9/11 was anything short of, in manifold ways, one giant unmitigated breakdown. The 9/11 Commission is still, to the behest of the Bush administration, investigating possible CIA wiretapping, torture and secret prison coverups, each of which encompassing its own interesting, unique dimension relative to international law, which remains to be vital, inconsistencies critical, where force, as a generalized notion becomes extensible to political violence. In other words, inconsistencies in international law, which might even be conceived as ineffiencies of sorts, in the realm of information, encompass a unique capacity to translate into political violence as a function of the entropy generated in the wider sphere of human relations - alliances, in particular - as some by-product of those ineffiencies.

With Abu Ghraib I think there are two things that are really important. The story of how it became such a big story – it partly has to do with Seymour Hersh [the journalist who broke the story], it partly has to do with whoever leaked those pictures to the media, but it is also true that even when the pictures were first shown, it was not quite such a big story in the United States until President Bush was forced to comment on it. And the reason he was forced to comment on it is because the pictures were also circulating in the Arab world. There was a big reaction in Arab public opinion, and he felt it was necessary to comment on that. So that fact that there are these other flows of information besides the ones involving Western media — it is not purely national, it is a global flow of information. And Bush has to respond to that.

Charlie Wilson's War, Stalingrad, Metal Furtinha, World War Three - and yet when I watch the news I sometimes remain unable to distinguish between what I see on the History Channel and what's being reported in the media. In other words, why would I need to watch a movie about history when what's happening right before my very eyes is history itself - not in the sense of its relativity to a future or potential future, but to the past ? Hence, if psyche as structure exists in time, as space, analogically related, on some level to geopolitical space, then it must possess the elements of psyche in the form of id, ego and superego, the analog of which is the past, present and future.

--- national identity ecology

Heidegger may have been the most prominent recent philospher to have made the distinction that might be best generalized as a question of time and existence or, " Being and Time. " While in the study of acoustics it's called the " Time Reversal Phenomenon. " Do we, as a civilization, have the power to determine the future, determine our own destiny, by re-determining history in a current context ? Why is Chechnya not Afghanistan ? Why is Osama not Osama ? To what extent is collective human behavior guided by some prevailing symbolism ? Is it a Jungian question ? Do symbols - some prevailing symbolic architecture - dictate the zeitgeist ? Is there a symbolic architecture that might exist in time and space that communicates, perhaps in much the same way an acoustic signal does, with human cognition, both on an individual and collective scale ?

What strikes me is the notion that both history and the future can be determined by the present - in some current context - but not necessarily as Marx may have conjectured, because history repeats itself but rather because sociological systems are, to competing extents in time and geopolitical space, both conservative and progressive, yet not in equal measures.