Someone is beating the war drums, and they know what they’re doing. I'm talking about this October 31, 2008 video clip. In it, a femal Egyptian lawyer urges Arab men to harass and rape Israeli women. "Leave the land so we won't rape you," the lawyer suggests early in the interview.

Imagine a Western authority figure, supported by national media, particularly an American, suggesting something like what is suggested in this video clip, but directed at Israeli, European, or American men, against Islamic women? Of course, and understandably, there would be outrage, even to the point of threats of violence, even war.

Stepping back a bit, do you find it odd as I do, that the person fronting this proposal is a neatly coifed and western-style-well-dressed Islamic female lawyer, notably without the burka or chador? What is the purpose of this outrageous suggestion?

Students of history know that nearly all wars can be traced to one of three things: The assassination of a popular or admired/beloved leader, the brutal death of a group of innocents, or the disrespect for, abuse of, rape or kidnap of a prominent woman, or group of women.

The natural instinct of men in nearly all cultures is to protect, respect, and honor their women. And the threat of sexual assault as a weapon, or accusations of rape or abuse of women has sparked wars and rebellions since the early days of civilization in all cultures across the globe. Why invite retaliation and revulsion?

The policy being proposed here is designed to inflame. This suggestion and the attendant publicity being given it in the media of the region (nearly all state and religiously controlled and heavily censored) is intentionally designed to spark a war-mentality in Israel, and to incite worldwide sympathy for a war on Islam.

Not only is our rapidly expanding federal government burying our current and next generatioin of youth in mountains of debt, but it is additionally lobbying to cut two to four years of taxable work out of their payback equation.  Check out the conclusion of this article in the Christian Science Monitor:

David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, says meeting higher recruiting goals would require a basic shift in the way the nation views the military. He says he bristles when discussions in Washington about encouraging Americans to participate in national service programs omit the military.

"Few of those attempts, and fewer of those legislative proposals, ever mention the military," he says. If the country were to reverse that stand, "there won't be serious recruiting issues."

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, a division of the U.S. Defense Department, announced, on September 9, the pending sale of 1,000 GBU-39 bombs to Israel. 

The GBU-39 small bomb is a superior and potent bomb that combines aerodynamics with a warhead design crafted to punch into targets with the force of a weapon several times its size. To be used against bunkers and concrete nuclear reactor shells, it has the potential to raise the number of targets, impact points, and at the same time, to lower collateral damage.

The former civilian leader of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, says the U.S. should have gone to war with Russia over Georgia. David Axe at Wired.com quotes the former Air Force Secretary: Had we found out the Russians were determined to invade, Wynne opined, "we could have strengthened air defenses of key Georgian positions, provided fighter re-enforcements, and placed Special Forces or Marines on the ground in the national capital."

To which Axe replied: "Holy pointless apocalypse, Batman!" 

The actual point of Wynne's article, as I see it, is that the U.S. and Europe need to clearly indicate to potential aggressor nations like Russia that invasions of other nations will not be tolerated. "Peace is a product of clarity, and strength," Wynne writes. "For decades, there has been clarity across the North Korean border; and it has meant strong economic growth for our ally in the south. For decades there was clarity across the German and Czech border and there was no doubt it mattered. Now there is doubt; and within limits, some clarity must be restored and effective tools generated and deployed to shape Western credibility."

To that we might ask, at what cost? Is it the responsibility, under the Constitution, of the U.S. government to exercise military force abroad? Clearly, the Constitution does not authorize the government to repel a Russian invasion of Georgia (unless it be our Georgia) by force.

The purpose of the U.S. military is to defend the citizens and property of the United States — not to defend the citizens and property of other nations. Should we throw the Constitution in the trash, put American citizens at risk, and overtly embrace empire in order to thwart Russia? (If one is an ardent internationalist at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and so on, the reflexive response is: "sure, why not?")

Quoting again from Wired's David Axe: "Say what you will about the justice of Georgia's initial attack on Ossetian separatists or Russia's supposedly 'disproportionate' response -- does anyone beside Wynne really think Georgia is worth risking Armageddon?"

Of course, we should be careful in framing the discussion of war and Armageddon in terms of constitutionality and in defense of property rights. After all, considering the tortured application of so-called political wisdom in Washington D.C. these days, Russia's calls for banning the satirical and irreverent show "South Park" might give Wynne and his comrades' a pretext for "protecting" America's property rights and market presence abroad.

Then again, if Americans want to rule the world, without running up such an expensive tab, maybe we should invest in craftier ways of getting Russians to watch endless reruns of American television.

On the whole, as Americans we have been turned into apathetic couch potatoes amenable to the regime. That same strategy will likely work in Russia, too.