TheTroublemakerTimes

They call him the leader of the free world. Which begs the question, where exactly is the free world? And, who are its lucky inhabitants, and then who are the luckless souls stuck in the “un-free world” and a host of other imponderables, but dear reader, for the purpose of this piece these questions remain rhetorical. We are not so much interested in where the free are, but more what exactly what it means to be free, and how we can keep ourselves free.

Our first clue comes from the identity of the man mentioned above, namely the leader of the free world. Who is, of course, the president of the USA? Thankfully its not the president of Spain, because God knows, if we had to learn Spanish to be free, then perhaps it might not be worth the effort. But fortune has smiled on us and made this leader English speaking, and white, or at least always a bit white, perhaps whiter than we might be allowed to say, being that freedom surely can’t be that broad. So even when he is black, he’s really white enough, or perhaps so white, that black is no longer an issue. One thing’s for sure, it’s not black and white.

It’s also absolutely irrelevant. Black, white, race, conservative, liberal, these labels are completely beside the point, for, ladies and gentleman, whoever this man may or may not be, whether you like his politics or not, what is going to define him is a simmering conflict of ideas, that soon may boil over into a very real threat, a threat to the free world. The only real issue is, will our new leader of the free world save us, or will we slide from the free to the un-free because of his ideological perspectives?

Its been so long since Reaganomics and Thatcherism triumphed in the cold war, and the realities of crazed people with explosive couture threatening our existence, along with kamikaze pilots and all manifestations of the War on Terror, that we have forgotten what a real nuclear threat might be.

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the plans of Osama, war for oil, and the Patriot act all pale in significance, when compared to the possibility that now rears its ugly head in the Middle East. The Ayatollahs are not to be trifled with, Salman Rushdie will tell you that.

Now, you may recall Dame Thatcher, often defending the proliferation of nuclear warheads on European and American Soil. It was her contention then that the proliferation of nuclear warheads had contributed to the relative stability of the world. It’s a simple idea, if everybody dies when we go to war, then nobody goes to war, therefore nuclear weapons prevent war.

“A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” - Margaret Thatcher

As you can imagine, it’s an Idea that infuriates a certain sector of the ideological spectrum. However, I think it has a simple truth. I think also, in terms of her time, it was sufficiently true, given the addition of one axiom.

That the holders of such weapons value their continued existence over their ideology.

Now therein lies the rub.

Thatcher was fighting Soviets, and the cold war was evidence of the constant compromise and careful diplomacy that was practised by both sides. An entire industry of covert operations, and all because no one really wanted to push the button.

The times have changed.

These last few months have brought the horrible consequences back to our minds with the announcement that Iran now has enough peaceful plutonium to build a bomb, probably also peaceful.

The incredible possibility of a serious enemy to us, with the capacity to wipe us out, in a moment’s indiscretion.

And I say us, because I mean just that, not just the US, but all of those of us from whose tongue that phrase glibly slips

“Leader of the free world.”

Pax Americana to the rescue?

Again.

It’s a curious distinction, I know, the free and the un-free, and its worth a closer look, before I consider the role of the USA in protecting our freedoms, that we take so for granted.

When I speak of freedom here, I speak of existential freedom. The right to become and be, anything you choose. To watch what you want, to read what you want, to express yourself, to sleep with who ever you want, to sit at coffee shops and talk about politics, to wear bikinis, to hold your lover’s hand, to get a divorce, to have free trial, to have rights….you get the picture.

This freedom, as opposed to the freedom to exist, which might encompass the freedom to have your freedoms taken away on behalf of your ideology, or to take other people’s freedom away on behalf of that ideology. The freedom to exist may also encompass national identity and separate ideals.

It is in terms of existential freedom, that Obama is a leader to us all, if only because his country needs it and they have the guns to keep it. More than that though is the reality, that as leader of the free world, within the context that we are speaking of it, the lives of the rest of us hang in the balance of his decision.

Now whilst Iran may have the freedom to exist, it does not support the idea of existential or personal freedom. On the contrary, it despises the very idea, which it portrays as decadent western rubbish.

Now we find out they have enough plutonium to make a bomb.

What they tell us, from Iran, is that it’s for peaceful purposes. That it’s their right.

The issue here is not so much the truth of that assertion. Perhaps it is true. Perhaps they do just want nuclear power.

The question dear reader, is, can we take that chance ?

Personally, the idea of a country like Iran referring to its “rights” leaves me somewhat cold.

The simple fact is that Iran has Intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology.

“Iran’s historic first successful space launch on February 2nd, placing its domestically grown satellite ‘OMID’ into an elliptical orbit around the Earth which has reached heights of 224 miles and speeds of 4.6 miles a second, is currently being tracked by NORAD. OMID has made multiple over flights of the United States and will continue to do so.”

Riki Ellison, Chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA) (www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org)

So now, unlike Mrs. Thatcher’s more reasonable world we have a country, ruled by a lunatic religious cabal, who despise the very notions of our personal freedom, who believe that the hereafter is infinitely more important, and who are awaiting virgins in heaven, and they can make the bomb, and send it anywhere they want, whenever they want, but they promise that they won’t.

Sorry, not good enough. No way. Never.

There is no time for diplomatic delay tactics, and just because the particular ruling elite may not want to send us all off to their version of heaven, does not mean that the next crew wont.

We cannot afford to be wrong, and so we cannot afford to allow the possibility.

This is the very question that faces our new leader of freedom. I imagine that he would prefer to see a free, and democratic Iran, free from religious oppression and autocracy. But how do you force freedom on other people, in order to preserve your own?

You go to war.

Before they get the bomb.

If you liked this piece the read:

pax america – the american dream – and defending the high seas or a polemic on the american century