Perpetual war. (Upfront: news and opinion from independent minds).

On September 14, 2001, a few days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president "to use all necessary and appropriate forces against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized and aided" the September 11, 2001, attacks. The congressional vote was unanimous except for one person in the House: Barbara Lee (Democrat, California).

Subsequently, Barbara Lee wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle:

   In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its
   responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. It was a
   blank check to the president to attack anyone in the September 11
   events--anywhere in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term
   foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time
   limits.

A columnist, Randolph Holhut, writing in the Progressive Populist on October 1, 2001, said Lee was right: "Congress gave President Bush the power to wage a war that has no geographic limits, no clearly defined enemies, no clearly defined goals and no beginning or end."

This is precisely the problem in George W. Bush's document entitled "The National Security Strategy of the United States" revealed in newspapers on September 26, 2002. Bush has indicated that he will determine the use of "pre-emptive action" or "first strike." He could do this, as he did in Afghanistan, by executive decision or by concealing and falsifying data about any nation, as he has done in Iraq. His effort to justify an attack on Iraq with the thousands of troops and air naval support already in striking distance in the Middle East contains falsehoods.

For example, Bush told Congress that Iraq continues "to possess chemical and biological weapons capability." At no time has he revealed, nor has the media, that the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) destroyed at least 95 percent of Iraq's chemical weapons and that by 1998 virtually all of Iraq's delivery systems, including missiles, were rendered inoperable. Iraq refused to cooperate because the inspector from the United States had secretly installed surveillance equipment and also used other methods for spying on Iraq. In a September 30, 2001, article in the Nation Stephen Zunes reminds us of these actions. He notes that Richard Butler of the United States, "without consulting the U.N. Security Council as required," announced he was nullifying agreements with respect to sensitive sites. He was then recalled to the United States, which launched a four-day bombing of Iraq. At that point, Iraq refused to permit inspectors to return.

All of this suggests that the recent renewal of Iraq's willingness to permit inspections could result in the revelation and disposal of the very weapons, if any, that Bush says threaten the United States and other countries. But neither Bush nor his associates nor the mainstream media suggested the possibility. Instead, Bush has concentrated on a "regime change."

The same article in the Nation also indicates:

   According to Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, no member has the
   right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the Security Council
   determines that there has been a material breach of its resolutions,
   decides that all non-military means of enforcement have been exhausted, and
   specifically authorizes the use of military force.

This should prevent U.S. pre-emptive strikes unless Bush defies, the United Nations and its charter to which the United States has subscribed. He has already signaled his intention to do so since he specifically states, "We will not hesitate to act alone."

A second major element of the new Bush administration strategy is that the United States will never allow its military supremacy in the world to be challenged. That means that the president won't permit any foreign power to catch up with the already huge lead the United States has in air and naval power, garrisons and bases all over the world, and control of outer space.

This control implies not only a heavily militarized nation but also the use of our tax money to support a permanent military industrial complex. It could lead the United States to war with China if Bush insists on his claim to Taiwan. The United States won't support efforts to achieve a disarmed world or to enforce treaties already signed such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In other words, Americans and others around the world are to expect that the United States will maintain a large supply of nuclear weapons and presumably test or use them as occasion demands. There is thus an expectation of heavy taxation of individuals at the same time that major corporations, especially those involved in producing for the "war effort," are inadequately taxed or are allowed to avoid taxation offshore. Who will be able to challenge manufacturers of the weapons needed to continue U.S. supremacy?

In addition to such militarization and the doctrine that "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary," Bush proposes military alliances, promotion of free markets and free trade, and financial assistance resources "to aid countries that have met the challenge of national reform." To do this he proposes "a 50 percent increase in the core development assistance given by the Unites States" to such countries he determines deserve it.

There are many other items in Bush's National Security Strategy that will escape discussion, such as a policy "to encourage business investment, innovation and entrepreneurial activity" and "tax policies ... that improve incentives for work and investment." Presumably, this is to encourage the spread of unregulated capitalism, but it leaves unanswered the problem of who will pay for all that this new strategy implies.

John M. Swomley has a Ph.D. in political science and international affairs from the University of Colorado and is professor emeritus of social ethics at St. Paul School of Theology in Kansas City, Missouri.