by Michael Shepard

Created on: January 21, 2012   Last Updated: January 22, 2012

The question of whether a fortress in Iraq is justified or not implies the answerer has some authority to decide whether it should be there or not. The fact is this: it is there. According to the United States of America; presence of power is justification enough. While opinions are allowed under the Constitution; they are irrelevant to decision-making; especially in government.

The question implies arrogance on the part of the question formulator. By asking; the questioner implies power to do anything about justified or unjustified decisions. The only thing a person holding the opinion that a fortress is unjustified can do is resolve the self to accept reality of United States’ fortress in Iran. Any other thought is fantasy and leads one only to madness. 

Say, for sake of fantastical hypothetical argument, conclusion is derived that the fortress is unjustified. What is the individual reaching the conclusion (rationally or otherwise) to do? A law passed allowing pacifists only to serve as elected officials would remove the fortress. This fantasy will never become reality, however. Demand for oil by America is the reason for the fortress. Until that demand is mitigated, U.S. economic interest will prevail in the Middle East.

This interest is the driving force behind sanctions and action to remove nuclear power capability from Iran and that invasion is required to destroy nuclear facilities built into mountains. Experts are now saying airstrikes alone are not enough to quash this capability.

The question could be reformulated. It could be: “Is it O.K. for Iran to have a nuclear bomb?”

The answer depends on the perspective and interest of the questioner. An Iranian would feel secure with knowledge of power of threat of use of a nuclear bomb will strengthen his position in the world. An Israeli may feel insecure with Iran's possession of nuclear capability. A Palestinian may experience pleasure at Israeli insecurity. The United States of America has proven itself to be very insecure with anyone having power besides themselves.

This insecurity is the justification for the presence of a Fortress Embassy in Iraq. The reasoning is thus: If enough power is held by an occupying country, peace and security is assured. Unfortunately, resentment of being occupied brings invalidity to this belief. The more and longer a people is occupied, the greater is the risk of mortal conflict.

Justification of a fortress embassy is violence and the need to stay safe.  Unfortunately, reality dictates the embassy a dangerous place.

Learn more about this author, Michael Shepard.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.