Existential Enemies

Imagine a scenario in which the Vice President of the U.S. introduces, while the U.S. Secretary of Defense listens in rapt attention, a speaker who tells the nation the following:

"We used to require an overt act of war to attack an enemy. However, we are dealing with an irrational and insidious threat: the Jews. Their religious works contain many unfriendly things about non-Jews, and frankly, they are just too dangerous to trust, even if they don’t actually plan to hurt us. They also kill, injure and torture many Palestinians. Henceforth, they will be our "existential enemy"–to be attacked whenever and wherever they are found. Further, they will be forced to accept our religious beliefs, because this will make them easier to deal with and less of a threat to us. Our attacks on Marin County and Forest Hills have been successful because–even if WMDs were not found–this has been "suasion at the point of a bayonette" and the Israelis are now coming clean with their WMD programs, knowing we can do the same things to them. Some might call this ‘state-sponsored terrorism’ but we call it ‘democratic globalism’."

Of course, the national and international howls of outrage at such statements–given quasi-official credence–would resound for years to come. And any president who took such advice would be forcibly driven from office. Yet, in essense, this is exactly what happened on Feb. 10th, 2004. Only, instead of "Jew" the word "Islamicists" was used at the keynote American Enterprise Institute speech by neocon guru and columnist Charles Krauthammer–introduced by U.S. V.P. Cheney. And Krauthammer’s speech synopsizes what the Bush Administration seems to be putting into practice.

The 1990s, according to this neocon, were a sort of "holiday from history"–an "interval of dreaming between two periods of reality". The "old" reality is a world of international law where the waging of agression required some overt act of war, such as an attack, the massing of troops on the borders of a soverign state, or at least concrete preparations for such an attack. The "New" reality, according to Krauthammer, is one where conventional Western logic no longer applies. Now, enemies are "existential enemies"–enemies by reason of their very existence and form of government and religious beliefs. While "freedom" and "democracy" will be the watchwords for dealing with these enemies–primarily to retain the support of the American public–Krauthammer is careful to limit the enemies and the areas they will be dealt with.

The "existential enemies" (to be destroyed and replaced with pliant "democracies") come from the secular and religious ranks of so-called "Undeterrables–people who ache for heaven…(whose rationality) is something beyond our control":

– Arab-Islamic totalitarianism
– Arab-Islamic radicalism
– Arab-Islamic nihilism

These–since they could include most Middle Eastern states–are limited by Krauthammer to the region seen by some radical Zionists as comprising "Eretz" or greater Israel:

"We come ashore only where it really counts. And where it counts today is that Islamic crescent stretching from North Africa to Afghanistan."

Krauthammer makes further departures from traditional logic, where the burden of proof is on the person advancing an argument:

"Realists have been warning against the hubris of thinking we can transform an alien culture because of some postulated natural human will to freedom. And they may be right. But how do they know in advance?"


Krauthammer likens the continuing war against Islamists to the Second World War against facism, saying making war on and "democratizing" the "Islamic Crescent" is equivalent to making war on and democratizing Germany and Japan. This "nation building" made them into "bulworks against the next great threat to freedom, Soviet communism."

But how successful was this "nation building" seeing as how it is about to be rolled out in the Mid East?

Inadvertantly, Krauthammer tells it it may not have been such a success for the "beneficiaries" when he speaks of "…the inexorable rise of China and the coming demographic collapse of Europe, both of which will irrevocably disequilibriate the international system."

In other words, less than 100 years after being "flipped into democracies" Germany and the rest of Europe are on the verge of disaster, their birthrates crippled by debt, immorality, abortion, birth control, homosexuality and other factors. Likewise, Japan is mired in long-term economic stagnation and deflation, as well as politial corruption, while China strides forward.


The United States was never intended to be a democracy. The writings of the Founding Fathers are full of fears expressed about this form of government. Even the esteemed Ben Franklin said at the completion of the Constitution: "Gentlemen, we have given you a Republic IF you can keep it."

Up until 1933, U.S. military manuals even carefully distinguished the U.S. from a democracy. And, at the start of his AEI presentation, Krauthammer even calls the U.S. a "commercial republic".

So why all the takl about democracy? That "freedom" and "democracy" are ciphers for Zionist control is made clear by Krauthammer’s laudatory treatment of the Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981:

"What international norm? The one under which Israel was universally condemned–even the Reagan Administration joined the condemnation at the Security Council…Does anyone today doubt that it was the right thing to do both strategically and morally"

(I do–Ed.)

And if "freedom" is such an absolute benefit, one is tempted to ask Krauthammer, why is the Bush Administration trying to restrict it in the U.S. through enactments such as the Patriot Act?


Finally, Krauthammer mendaciously glosses over the failure to find Iraqui WMDs by stating that this was "the suasion of the bayonette" to convince other regional states to fall into line. Thus, Iraq was a success in that terror supplanted statecraft.

Libya is held up as positive proof of this approach. But on April 6th, 1999, didn’t Libya surrender intelligence officials implicated in the Lockerbie, Scotland plane bombing? This handover–without war–was hailed as a "victory over terrorism" by then-president Bill Clinton. And on May 29, 2002, didn’t Libya make a substantial compensation offer to the crash victims? Wasn’t this also before Iraq?

And that brings to mind Iraq itself. Didn’t the Iraquis make repeated requests for talks with and normalization of relations with the U.S.? I recall these in 1992 and on March 5th, 1998 it was reported by Peter Arnett on the CNN World Report that the state-owned Baghdad Observer called for "…a daring step by reasonable and realistic politicians to reassess American policy toward Baghdad and direct talks with the government of Iraq so as to normalize relations."

Judging by the reception of Krauthammer’s AEI talk–and the mirroring of certain parts of it in George W. Bush’s subsequent speech to Army Reservists–the supply of such politicians is dwindling here in the U.S.