|
This page was started shortly before the war, and
represented my arguments against the war by means of
arguing directly with the Bushleague talking points.
The war transmogrified into a Vietnam-style quagmire from
an in-and-out liberation of grateful victims of a dictator
created and supported by our president's father and Ronald
Reagan. It's fascinating how the allegedly liberal
media has avoided bringing this up. I wish I had
"sound bites" of all the Reaganites cooing the
praises of Saddam in the 1980's when he was gassing his
own people. They liked him fine because he killed
people like the Shi'ite militants and Bin Laden to earn
American financing for his weapons. He made sure
that Iraq was a secular state like Turkey, friendly to
Western oil needs, and he was a model of
democracy.
Then came the Neocons, and the grand plan for an
American Empire, a Pax Americana in the PNAC. Long
story.... anyway, today is November 22, 2005
and this horrific war is 2 1/2 years old and my wife and I
are also finishing 2 1/2 years of no television. We
listen constantly to various public radio stations, read
the Internet voraciously for information about what's
happening in Iraq and in the rest of the Middle
East. I confess that the constant procession of body
bags and bad news has led me to somewhat despair of
keeping links to everything I read about this
matter. I suspect that most of my readers are rather
desensitized to the whole matter by now. However, I
do have a few interesting sites linked below that are
great sites for getting more detail on the events
there. Further below that is a list of common arguments for
war in Iraq and against those who opposed it.
This is followed by extensive rebuttals of
each point. Scroll down to see the occasional
updates I have made.
March 5, 2006: The war is going terribly. It
looks like a civil war could break out in Iraq, and maybe
even here. Meanwhile, the Bush administration seems
to be crumbling and melting before our eyes. Recall
Bush's mantra about fighting the war "over there so
we don't have to fight it over here."? In light
of the apparent meltdown there and the rapid ebbing of
leadership from the Whitehouse and the illegal wire
tapping scandal, we see that Bush has been fighting the
war at home so he doesn't have to fight it over
there. By that I mean that through propaganda and
police state measures, he has been fighting the war
strictly for the entertainment, deception and control of
the American population.
October 28, 2004: [I wrote here some predictions, and
one year later I'm looking at them again. I'm
unhappy to say that my prophetic skills were pretty
good.] The ultimate "lesson for
posterity" from Iraq seems to me to be that in an
information-based society, military and physical
suppression are far less effective than the much smaller retaliations
of the oppressed. A few terrorists can cause a lot
of havoc if they manage to convince a critical mass of
people that their horrible plans are preferable to the
activities of their common oppressor. To state this
a bit more plainly, the more a "superpower"
attempts to eliminate the negative reactions of the people
they oppress or suppress, the more their ability to defend themselves
against those reactions decreases.
With the most
momentous election in US history just around the corner,
I'd like to make a prediction: If Bush wins the election,
he will make a really aggressive attempt to squash the
resistance in Iraq. This attack will outrage Muslims
across the world, and many of our allies. The result
will be a loss of crucial cooperation in the war on terror
and the complete conversion of America to the status of
international pariah. Bush's strategy of pretending
he can "fight terrorists over there, rather than
here" will collapse. Retaliations will occur
from many fronts--most probably
Afghanistan/Pakistan. Maybe Iran, but I suspect that
it will come from the remnants of Al Qaida that John Kerry
has been accusing Bush of letting escape. (In case
you missed this, it is quite clear that in Tora Bora, Bush
let Pakistan's political interests trump ours in such a
way that it compromises American security.) The
ultimate outcome will probably be that Bush's presidency
will turn into a nasty situation that will make Clinton's
second term look like patty cake. If he doesn't pose
a coup d'etat of his own government, he will be hounded and maybe even
overthrown.
And what if Kerry wins? Here's my prediction:
Evangelical and Orthodox Jewish believers will be so upset
at the overthrow of their King David that they will
instigate a new Civil War in which the Mason-Dixon line
will be drawn through every metropolitan area: urban vs
suburban/rural. It's a war that will be fought by
radial redistricting of cities, such as we saw in
Texas. This will assure that congressional
representatives will remain conservative, no matter what
happens in Senate and administrative elections (and a
fortiori judicial appointments). The war might
even escalate to NRA members vs gun-fearing
liberals. I'm feeling pretty pessimistic because I
realize that Darwinian laws assure that no matter what
happens in 2004, we can only expect a more
conservative electorate in 2008. But, I predict that
if Bush does lose in 2004, there will be the biggest damn global
celebration since the .... gee, I can't think of anything
that has been that huge. The aftermath will be hell,
but there's going to be one heck of a party. I
expect that conservatives will be very unhappy to see us
all so exuberant over the defeat of their messiah.
By the way, this
recent AlterNet article is superb. It explains
very clearly what's up with those people who have Bush
signs in their yards.
October 17, 2004: James
Baker III, close associate of both the Bush Gang and the
Carlyle Group has been lobbying countries to forgive
Iraq's debt at the same time he works behind the scenes to
recover 24 billion owed by Iraq to the Carlyle Group.
We should not be surprised, I guess, that Baker is
therefore simultaneously working for the president
(government) and a private corporation in which the
president's family has a financial stake. That ought
to help Bush make friends again in the global
village. Do these people have any understanding of
the word "integrity"?
As if that weren't disgusting enough, the Independent
Women's Federation, a right wing anti-feminist think tank
and foundation is receiving your tax dollars to go to Iraq
and teach Iraqi women how to ... well... be submissive
females I guess. The IMF has connections to the
pseudoreligious groups connected to Mellon-Scaife, and an
appalling record behind them.
Lastly, Babylon
A-Go-Go tells the story of Fundamentalist mentality
and the weird shit that's going down in Iraq. It's a
rather sarcastic article, but it tells some very
interesting and important information.
August 6, 2004 Update: So, it's well over a year
since Bush declared "Mission
Accomplished." Which parts of the argument
below have proven erroneous? Basically summarized,
the biggest error I made was to believe that Saddam was as
dangerous and armed as Bush claimed. I was not
certain, but since I had no way to verify or refute their
claims, I had no rational choice but to accept their claim
as honest and verified. It's quite clear now that the war
in Iraq was a total hornswoggle from the beginning.
Foolishly I predicted that our troops would face a
horrible ground war. Instead, the resistance
evaporated immediately. Another of the arguments has
become more accurate over time--the fact that not all of
the war's opponents are witless, bleeding heart
liberals. The number of people criticizing the war
is growing rapidly, and includes many corporate figures,
and lots and lots of military brass. The common
prediction that Bush would become a powerful recruiting
tool for anti-American terrorists has proven frightfully
accurate. Apparently Al Qaeda even released a
statement endorsing Bush for president because his
impulsive, aggressive politics have helped them immensely
to spread and strengthen their message. This
is all horrible news for Iraqis, who must suffer through
the nightmarish chaos we have created. However, it
is all very good news for those of us who have distrusted
the Bush family since the 1970's.
September 28th, 2003 Update: As of today, the Iraq Body
Count civilian death toll is calculated at somewhere
between 7300 and 9100. We are approaching the point
where the civilian dead from after the war supposedly
ended is as high as those killed during the brief
war. In terms of our own soldiers, the death toll
since the war is rapidly ascending above the number killed
during the war. But, the arrogant president had the
nerve to tell the terrorists on international TV
"Bring 'me on!" It reminds me of the
chicken hearted bully who starts fights that his bigger
friend will fight for him.
It looks like Bush isn't going to be able to
count on military absentee ballots being helpful to him
this time around. The
way he is screwing the soldiers over, I wouldn't be
surprised if they concoct a scam to prevent the counting
of military ballots. Funny
how the whole war mongering crew in the White House is
made up of draft dodgers and an incompetent AWOL soldier
who got himself daddied into the Air Force Reserve.
To the protesters who think that the way to handle the
current situation is to completely pull out of Iraq now, I
can only shake my head in disbelief. Surely we
should never have gone in there in the first place, but
now that we have, we can't leave until order is created
again. The sad part is that Bush is just too greedy
and arrogant to do the necessary mea culpa and turn
over control to the UN. That will probably never
happen, so we can only watch the inevitable decay into
disorder. The only solution will be for Bush to
stand up like the man he isn't, apologize, and give the UN
significant power and authority. Above all, there
must be some economic incentive for the participating
countries. We all know that Bush is incapable
of this sort of humility, but we can watch him squirm as
the countries of the world shame him to death. The
bright side of this terrible sequence of events will be
the ultimate defeat of Bush at the
2004 polls--an event that seems just as inevitable, given
the voting machines aren't rigged.
April 24th, 2003 Update: So, where are the weapons of
mass destruction? Why is America trying to forget
the weapons of mass destruction, while France and Germany
are so wisely afraid of these weapons falling into the
wrong hands now that chaos reigns in Iraq? Why do
the French and Germans demand a return of weapons inspectors,
whereas the Bushies are hoping we all forget that they
used the weapons as an argument? Why did the Americans
and British invade without careful scouring for such weapons
on the front lines? Did they ever believe there
were weapons there in the first place? If so, were
they hoping they would fall into the hands of terrorists
during the chaos that followed the war?
Syria will be next, to complete the strategic route from
the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, and to cut the Muslim
world in half north to south. They'll be able to
build a pipeline and a freeway from Kuwait City to Tartus,
Syria. Groovy, eh?
Oh, and then the new dictator in Iraq, American military
contractor and Bush family friend Jay Garner will not
find receptive vassals in Iraq, or appreciative observers
around the world. The Bechtel Corporation bagged
the construction contracts behind closed doors.
The British are supposed to be satisfied with promises
that Bechtel will subcontract the work.
April 11 2003: Where is Saddam? Did he die
under the bunkerbusters? Did he, like Al Qaida,
get American protection and assistance to escape to Pakistan?
Is he in hiding in the Russian embassy? Is he in
a Southeastern Afghanistan cave plotting revenge with
Osama Bin Laden? Did he commit suicide like Hitler?
Did his own inner guard betray and kill him? Is
he sitting in a bunker in Mosul waiting for the best moment
to release a massive chemical weapon attack on Baghdad,
now that his soldiers fled the area? Will the ghost
of uncertainty haunt the Iraqis, and poison their chances
for democracy? Are both Osama and Saddam really
employees of the CIA? There are so many conspiracies
and speculations floating around now. The only question
that really matters for the future of the world is this:
who will be president of the United States of America
in 2005? If Bush doesn't get Saddam'is head on a
pike, will the world be satisfied with a bunch of civilians
maimed and dead, and a cowardly army that dissolved before
their eyes? Maybe someday they will figure out that
one can't fight a war against a personal enemy.
One can only fight a nation of innocent bystanders.
Post-War Update Links:
It
WAS about oil: Excellent summary of clear signs that
this war was planned to benefit the Bush Wing of the GOP,
and not the Iraqi people, let alone American Homeland
Security.
WATCH BILL MOYERS'
NOW!!!
Instead of supporting our troops, the Bush
Administration is preparing to give them the shaft--big
time. This
little animated advert from Take Back the Media tells the
extensive story of how wretchedly the Republican fascists
are treating the soldiers they have so often lionized
in order to attack liberals who dare to question their
evil "war."
Contra Bellum: Arguments for War and Against the Anti-War
Movement Debunked
First, let's start with a quote from the second in command
of the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler:
"All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same
in any country." -Hermann
Goering
And then this illuminating quote from the often misquoted
Robert Jackson:
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong
for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that
they lost the war, but that they started it. And we
must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of
the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances
or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It
is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument
of policy.
— U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative
to the International Conference on Military Trials,
Aug. 12, 1945.
In a climate of growing tensions between those who support
the war and those who do not, it is increasingly important
to look at both sides of the issue. I personally
do not fear this kind of engagement. The arguments
provided in favor of the war are not, in my opinion, strong
enough to stand up to the various criticisms made against
them, no matter how loud, aggressive or offensive the
rhetoric. So, this page starts out with an
introduction to the basic arguments that we have been
force-fed to support this war.
Whatever your position in this debate, at the pragmatic
level of geopolitical actions, the core issue is
an argument over two choices: the most intense urban bombing
campaign since Dresden, or weapons inspectors. The
hawks accuse the doves of supporting and placating or
"appeasing" Saddam. In order to hide the
reality of their war plans, they do everything they can
to get the TV cameras and inspectors out of Iraq
so they can "liberate the Iraqi people" with
a firestorm of cruise missiles. There are other
options and possible variations, but these are our choices:
Expensive mass killing, or inspectors with cameras. Only
a naive simpleton would suggest that not doing anything
at all toward intervening in Saddam's activities is an
option. I shall argue for intensive, coercive weapons
and human rights inspections on an indefinite basis.
There is also an important subtext at a national political
level. That battle is a brewing civil war between
liberals and conservatives. Perhaps it is more accurate
to describe it as a battle over turning America into a
21st Century Roman Empire with socialism for the corporate
elite class, or a European/Canadian style system of socialism
that supports the lower and middle classes to assure food,
health care and quality education. Make no mistake
about it--in spite of the ranting of Grover Norquist,
the Republicans who are currently in power in the United
States are not interested in cutting government spending,
or shrinking government programs. They are creating
more government programs, hiring more administrative executive
wankers, spending vastly more money, getting violent on
the global arena, and destroying every last vestige of
American internationalism. In other words,
this debate is carried out in the worst of faith, since
they do not back up their own words with corresponding
actions. Rather than conservatives in the libertarian
sense Grover Norquist lionizes, we have a Republican party
that has clearly become fascist.
Although Bush campaigned on the principle of being "a
uniter (sic), not a divider", Bush has been
the single most divisive president I am aware of--at
least if we factor in the fact that Bush has clearly failed
in the most pitiful and miserable way to communicate effectively
with our allies. Unlike Clinton,
Bush has proven himself to be a first class jerk--capable
of angering and offending just about anyone who questions
his obsessive-compulsive agenda. Excuse the strong
words, but these are the kindest English terms
to describe this sort of behavior. The only
people who would disagree with my remark are partisan
Americans who still support him in spite of the clear
and resounding, global vote of no confidence
he just had slapped on him. As CEO of America, the
superpower of the world, he has been no
more successful than he was as CEO of Arbusto and Harken. Michael
Moore's latest open letter asks Bush the appropriate question,
"How
much do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest
with Saddam Hussein?" I notice that
conservatives who chafe at such harsh criticisms of Bush
refuse to really deal with the fact that most of
the world agrees with us liberals and not with them.
They like to make a lot of inconsistent noise about an
internationalist elite with a conspiracy of communist
homosexuality, but the truth is that it is and always has
been a fight between those who do the work and those who
live in idle luxury.
Whatever the outcome of the Bush War, it is evident that
in a very important moral sense that he has already
lost the war before it began. But, I'm sure
that not everyone who reads this will agree with me, so
I am going to carry out, to the best of my ability, something
that the American media has avoided like the plague--an
honest debate, argument-by-argument for and against the
Bush War (and probably Bush Wars if he continues
on this path). In order to avoid the nasty sound
bite food fights we see on FOX and CNN, I will use the
more cool-headed and substantiated arguments
available on the Internet. I have reproduced some
of the nasty rhetoric I have been hearing on the right
wing media. I provide it in the spirit of honesty--to
help bring out the nuances and psychological subtext to
the Bush War rhetoric.
Given the simple fact that there is so much low-quality
and irrelevant rhetoric supporting the war available to
us, it is important to focus our attention on the more
influential and coherent positions. In my opinion,
some of the strongest statements available are found at
the following web sites:
- The
White House web site: I guess the front page
is supposed to make us think they are handling other
things than promoting the Iraq war and setting up their
Orwellian, nepotistic oligarchy. There is no better
source of official, up-to-the date information.
- Project
for the New American Century: [be sure to
keep an eye on the PNAC
Info site for updates on what these warmongers are
up to.] This ambitious organization embodies the
neo-Roman Empire plans for liberating the world from
the tyranny of socialism, religious extremism, terrorism,
disease, etc. Not surprisingly, their first order
of business is regime change in Iraq, and then the rest
of the world. Less surprising is their penchant
for using bombs and deceit to get us to comply.
Here you will find the essential and most seminal arguments
that burble up out of Bush's folksy arrogance.
These are the people who devised
the current Iraq scenario back in 1991, but with
the Clinton White House found no support.
- David
Horowitz's FrontPage: Although the reasoning is
skewed, and based on deceptive contextual information,
this is one of the better sources of pro-war blogging.
Essays by an assortment of Republican hawks present
editorials based on official policy: pushing the pro-corporate,
pro-war, anti-Clinton, pro-Republican (in that order)
organism that controls all branches of our government
now.
Much lower quality hate speech and lunacy is available
at the fountains of AM Talk Radio "wisdom".
These sources provide very narrow bandwidth, high amplitude,
propaganda for mass consumption by the working class,
and "conservative media" (infotainment) consumers.
I will include some of their discourse for picturesque
flavor, just in case you have been, like most educated
Americans, avoiding the corporate, right wing media.
- Rush
Limbaugh: apparently shame and greed have driven
him to hide the majority of his web content by charging
money. You can't see much of anything except the
latest headlines and images he wants to share with you.
Listen to the show on your local Rupert Murdoch radio
stations.
- Michael
Savage: Absolutely no substance on the web for this
guy. Clearly, he is even more ashamed than Limbaugh
of putting those words into print. Also available
on your local Rupert Murdoch franchise frequencies on
the radio dial. Archetypal AM hate-orgy call-in
radio. Excellent dispersal of object lessons in
bad reasoning suitable for a beginning logic course,
or College English composition course. For
more on Savage, look at my essay on the
Puppets of the Right Wing Media.
- Ann
Coulter: Insanely vicious PR harpy for the Republican
party, she has two best-selling books of dubious invective
and some essays for your edification. See also
the Federalist Society website, where you'll find her
work along side the Washington right wing elite who
brought to us the pitiful, inescapable, irrelevant story
of Bill Clinton's sex life--committing the most vile
and violent sedition I have seen in my life. She's
aspires to be the political equivalent of the National
Enquirer, but lacks the imagination to use aliens and
human freaks in her stories. Since Rush and Savage
lack her overhyped, aggressive bimbo panache, she's
the one that Murdoch likes to put on TV to insult, slander
and "strawman" the liberals, the Clintons,
feminists, gun control supporters and war protesters.
- Examples of the effects of too much
info-porn from the Murdoch fast-news chain on the minds
of typical American citizens: Tom
Olsen
- My older Links
collection for the Iraq War (and some essays about
the war mongers)
Here is a very brief summary of the arguments that
the Bush administration has provided to support this war.
1) Saddam's Character:
Saddam is evil, dishonest, has WMDs,
kills his own people, tried to kill GHW Bush, invaded
Kuwait. America is the great, moral super-power,
and it is our obligation to liberate the Iraqi people
from tyranny. Supporting information on this is
available from the White
House web site's Iraq Page. [1,
2,
3]
click for rebuttal
2) Saddam and Terrorism: Saddam
may have connections to terrorism and Al Qaida.
This CBS
news article outlines the evidence. click
for rebuttal
3) Saddam's Empire: Saddam
has imperial intentions to conquer his neighbors and create
a pan-Arabic state. Saddam is a destabilizing force
in the Middle East. Look at what he did to Kuwait
and his extensive war with Iran. He is also a great
threat to the safety of Israel. click
for rebuttal
4) Inspections don't work:
Weapons inspections and negotiations do not work.
Look, Saddam has a weapons stockpile. The weapons
inspectors were never intended to find weapons.
They were put there to assure that he had disarmed.
The inspectors have determined that he has not disarmed,
so it is time to drop the bombs. Richard
Perle's comments are the strongest I have seen,
click for rebuttal
5) Public Enemy #1: Saddam
is the biggest single threat to the United States
and the world at this time. We must fight multiple
wars at the same time (War on Terror and War on Iraq)
because the two are connected. Stopping Saddam is
an important step toward ending the threat of terrorism.
click for rebuttal
6) Leftists & Bush Haters:
The anti-war movement is made up of and led by leftists,
communists, atheists, pacifists, Democrats and Bush haters.
They are using the war as a reason to attack the Bush
agenda and Bush administration, not to mention the American
way. (Extensive
articles on this theme available here) AM Talk
radio is saturated with variations on this argument.
In support of this argument is the multinational support
we are receiving, and strong public opinion poll results.
These two indicators show that the opposition is limited
to partisans and extremists. Germany and France
represent "old Europe." Our allies, England
and Spain, are the "new Europe." Click
for rebuttal
7) Sedition: Criticism
of the president and administration is unacceptable during
a time of war. This is a time of war, so the Sedition
Act should be implemented to silence and/or arrest
those who criticize the Administration. This David
Horowitz article gives an interesting defense of civil
rights violations in the name of security. Click
for rebuttal
8) Traitors: Those who
oppose the war are supporting and helping Saddam.
They are supporters of Saddam. To oppose the war
is to demean our soldiers. If you don't support
the war, you don't support our soldiers, and you are an
unpatriotic traitor. Click for
rebuttal
9) Actors in Politics:
Actors and entertainers have no business in politics.
They don’t know anything about global politics.
Click for rebuttal
10) It's not just about the oil:
This is not a war for oil. Why would we spend hundreds
of billions to make tens of billions of dollars?
Besides, we are dependent upon oil. Create alternative
energy and transportation yourself, or shut up.
Having oil industry executives in control of the government
is a good idea at this time, since energy policy is so
important. Americans should “chill out” and leave
this to the experts. Never mind that the General
Accounting Office has been harassing Cheney for their
secret discussions to plan energy and environmental policy.
How dare you question their ethics? A president
must have his privacy respected. This is privileged
information, and this kind of privacy must be returned
to restore the dignity of the office of president.
You must hate America, you self-loathing, lib'ral hippy-spawn,
commie freak. Where would you be if we didn't kick
some ass now and then? You'd be living in a communist
country, driving a horse to work, and you wouldn't have
that home theater system! You're lucky we conservatives
are here to protect your chicken shit asses. We
don't need no job-killing tree huggers holding back economic
growth What do environmentalists know about economics
anyway? Only market-based initiatives can solve
our environmental problems. etc. (repeat as desired,
and add plenty of references to Bill Clinton's corruption
as heard from Ann
Coulter and at KKK rallies.) Click
for rebuttal
11) Platform for Democratic Reform
in Middle East: We want to liberate the Iraqi
people and create a platform for democratic reform and
stability in the Middle East. Anyone who opposes
us opposes Democracy itself. That is unamerican
(see sedition and treason above) because America is a
beacon of truth, free markets and democracy. The
United Nations and NATO do not represent global democracy
in the true sense of the word. They are held hostage
by communists, terrorists and those who profit from terrorism.
We do not need their consent to defend ourselves against
terrorists, especially when we can create such a dramatic
improvement in the lot of life for the poor Iraqi people
who have suffered so under Saddam. Nation building
(sic) is necessary in some cases, even though Bush
made a campaign promise not to get involved in nation
building. 9/11 changed everything. Regime
change in Iraq will bring a domino effect of democracy
in the Middle East. Click for
rebuttal
12) War Makes Jobs: War will help the economy
and make jobs, create new technology, and give us a chance
to test new weapons technology. The sooner we get
this war over, the sooner we can get the economy back on
track. You peaceniks are to blame for the bad economy
because you are slowing down the war. Click
for rebuttal
13. Christians
Vs Muslims: This is a war of cultures--Christians
and Jews must fight against an evil religion that condones
and creates terrorists. Click for
rebuttal
REBUTTALS
1) Saddam's Character: Extreme right Talk
Radio personalities like to beat on a straw man who denies
the extremely negative portrayal of Saddam Hussein.
The most direct and important rebuttal of this argument
for the war is quite simple: Nobody disagrees with them
on this point. Saddam is evil, evil, evil.
This admission might be a strong indication for war, but
there are certain other factors that stand in the way
of a clean, cut-and-dry just war.
If we engage in a pre-emptive war, we will set a very
low standard that may be used against us in the future.
Being evil has never been sufficient reason to
bomb a country and kill its leader. If we accept
this argument in this case, then what is to stop a coalition
of China, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey and the entire
Middle East from bombing us after the war because they
determine that our president is evil and a menace to the
world? Anyone outside of America could quite
easily argue that bombing Iraq under the current
circumstances is far more of a justification for bombing
America than anything Bush has now on Iraq. Military
superiority will not protect us against an all-out economic
boycott against us. It would be much cheaper, easier
and karmically just for them to destroy us that way.
I have noticed that the just war arguments and the him-hawing
around the future of pre-emptive war issues prevent an
honest debate of the merits of the opposition.
While it is not really an argument against war, or in
defense of Saddam, we need not look too deeply to question
the ethics of our own president and government.
As will be discussed at more length in the following arguments,
there is ample evidence that Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld and
Rice have intentionally deceived and manipulated us with
false and misleading information about Iraq. In
my observation, anyone who even suggests that the Bush-Cheney
regime is suspicious enough to merit a 70 million dollar
investigation like Clinton got is labeled a "commie",
"unpatriotic", "traitor", "lib'ral"
(whatever that means), etc. I won't enter into an
extensive critique. There is plenty out there to
look at. Let's be more specific, and focus on Bush's
record since January 2001.
Bush has behaved in a most uncivilized, disrespectful
and disturbing manner toward allies, and even to citizens
who wish to engage him in debate. He threatens the
world with American military power and weapons of mass
destruction. He also has the media beaten into submission.
Bush has certainly killed his share of American citizens
through his
zealous application of the death penalty in Texas.
It doesn't compare to Saddam's bloodlust, unless we add
to that the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan.
Add to that the number that will be killed in
Iraq, and
the moral line between Saddam and Bush quickly becomes
fuzzy. Terry Jones makes this ironic argument most
succinctly in his "Mr.
Bush Goes For the Kill" For more
interrogation of Bush's ethics, see this page.
Also, look at these cases
of blackmail and buying of votes from UN Security Council
members, and spying
on them. Basically, we have every reason to
suspect that we are being pushed into war by a bunch of
insane, amoral fanatics with no regard for truth.
An even more ironic piece of the picture is the fact
that the investigation of the anthrax
attack of October 2001 revealed that the United States
military has secret, illegal projects involved in making
biological weapons in violation of our own treaty.
Just like Saddam, America was lying about its weapons
of mass destruction. Furthermore, the anthrax attack
was, according to FBI investigations, carried out for
political (anti-Democrat) and/or venal (promoting
Bayer's Cipro) motives by an American scientist.
This does not in the least implicate Bush himself, but
it does suggest that the American government contains
rogue elements that are really no different at all from
Saddam Hussein.
Other counter-arguments revolve around these points:
- Most of Saddam's worst behavior was
carried out with the full knowledge and support
of Reagan and Bush Sr. Rumsfeld personally
visited and praised Hussein after the killing
of Kurds and Shi'ites. Given this simple fact,
there is no reason to take seriously any claims of trying
to help the Iraqi people. This is not an argument
against war, but rather an argument against the argument.
It is a criticism of past choices that has special importance
in light of the fact that we are repeating these mistakes
in a potentially more dangerous form in our current
relationships with Pakistan and perhaps Turkey.
- It seems highly probable that keeping Iraq's ethnic
groups together after Saddam will require another nasty
dictator. No doubt that's why the irony-challenged
war supporters put the American flag on their "Liberate
Iraq" lawn signs instead of the Iraqi flag. Saddam
is definitely bad, but who will replace him? Iraq
is not an easy country to manage, and the international
politics are extremely complex. Even more
important along these lines, take a look at the various
intellectual, cultural, ethical, legal, political and
diplomatic issues that dog the White House (barely sufficient
karmic justice for making us listen to stories about
sticky cigars and lying secretaries). Saddam
is bad, we all agree. But, do we have reason to
believe that Cheney's Halliburton (who will make enormous
amounts of money from war), is doing all they can to
halt terrorism when this happens in an isolated, poor,
Islamic country? nuclear
materials ideal for a dirty bomb stolen from Halliburton
in Nigeria. [more: 1
]
At best, this means they are incompetent
for an important contract in a dangerous place like
Iraq, yet they were selected behind closed doors to
be a major beneficiary of the war on Iraq. Also,
our track record in Afghanistan
is not reassuring, though it might be explained by the
unspeakable lack of interest they have in that country,
thanks to its lack of oil and abundance of opium.
- No recent or persuasive evidence of WMD activities
has been revealed. The much-touted presentation
by Colin Powell to the United Nations Security Council
was made up of old intelligence information (none more
recent than two years ago) and plagiarized academic
papers. [1,
2,
]
And the CIA
is complaining that the Bush administration has been
pressuring them to produce disinformation that supports
their war. Saddam filed a misleading and
incomplete report of his activities. Bush responded
by making Colin Powell submit a forged document with
false accusations. I'd say this makes them even,
or at least drives home the point that they are playing
this dangerous game on the same level. More on
this point later.
- An argument for expensive war based on Saddam's bad
character is slightly weak as an ad hominem and
VERY weak when we compare him to other dictators and
nasty situations like North Korea, Pakistan, or even
the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. If Saddam is bad
enough for bombs, why aren't these others? The
obvious answer is oil and the power that control of
oil gives. More on this point later too.
- The
United States is a major producer of nuclear weapons,
and used
depleted uranium weapons in the first Gulf War,
which are basically "dirty
bombs" with radiological and heavy metal toxicity.
Pakistan produces and sells nuclear weapons to
North Korea, threatens our ally India with them, and
currently
is sheltering Al Qaida. Saddam
does not, according to Bush, possess nuclear weapons. Somebody
connected to the Bush administration did in fact knowingly
create forged documentation of nuclear development in
Iraq. America lied about this and was caught red
handed. There is no denying that this basically
erases any and all legitimacy we have in this war, and
probably future wars. This was a huge and grave
ethical infraction. It certainly doesn't put Bush
down to Saddam's level, but it is increasingly difficult
to draw the distinctions between them in an unambiguous
way.
- If Saddam is so unpopular among his people, and he
fears rebellion from the people, why is he not
only allowing, but encouraging citizens to buy guns
to defend themselves and Iraq from American aggression?
Hitler confiscated and restricted gun ownership by Jews
because he feared them. Saddam must be pretty
confident.
Again, I must repeat, in light of the vehement, pigheadedness
of the right wing warmongers, I am not opposed in principle
to killing an evil creature like Saddam. I am not
opposed to regime change there. The main issue at
hand is what is the best way to make the world safer.
Bombing Iraq will not kill Saddam, it will not make the
world safer, and we will lose even more respect from the
rest of the world. In other words, the very practical
and long term issues surrounding the strategy of this
war indicate that it will neither make life better for
the Iraqis, nor will it be effective in making us safer
in the long term. In the jargon of just war theory,
the possible benefits clearly do not outweigh the probable
negative consequences.
It is a false dilemma presented by Bush that our choices
are either massive bombing of Baghdad, or doing nothing.
This kind of argument is dishonest and sinister in the
extreme.
Use your back button to return to pro-war argument
list.
2) Saddam and Terrorism: The
CIA disagrees. Coleen
Rowley, an agent of the FBI has released a new
bombshell on the FBI's Robert Mueller. No evidence
has yet been found that connects Saddam to 9/11 or Al
Qaida, though a great deal of public evidence exists
that connects Saddam to Reagan, Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld
[1,
2,
3],
and a
host of American companies. It is a known fact
that right up until the actual invasion of Kuwait that
Saddam firmly believed that he had American support or
at least neutrality on his invasion of Kuwait.
Saddam's Ba'ath party is not Islamist. Rather, he
has an ambitious vision of a secular Arab state like the
Assyrian or Babylonian Empire. Saddam's former popularity
with American administrations probably had a great deal
to do with his willingness to oppress and kill Islamists
(conservative Wahabi and Shi'ite Muslims who wish to implement
a unified, caliphate or Islamic nation) Osama Bin Laden
and most Arabs and Muslims hate Hussein for this very
reason. There is no information provided on the
White House website that suggests a connection, though
Bush has publicly made numerous statements that make the
insinuation--basically, if we don't kill Saddam, we'll
have another 9/11. However, the CIA did indeed
warn that although they do not believe that Saddam represents
a threat to America at this time, they do believe that
an attack on him would be answered with the use of WMDs.
In other words, Iraq would do the same thing Bush would
do if we were attacked by WMDs. Also, the various
presentations by Bush and Powell to the United Nations
have not persuaded anyone of Saddam's relevance to the
war on terror. Here
is a great cartoon about the Saddam-Osama connection.
The administration's increasing and disingenuous insistence
on the connection between Saddam and 9/11 is an appalling
example of Orwellian doublethink at work. 42% of
Americans now believe that Saddam was responsible for
9/11. The Bush administration has never explicitly
stated this. They have merely created an artful,
psychological bait-and-switch, with the help of the allegedly
liberal media. This mass hallucination is the most
clear counter-evidence possible for the absurd myth of
the liberal media.
Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.
3) Saddam's Empire: This is the most powerful
argument, if we could find evidence that Saddam wants
to invade his neighbors. There are almost no trees
or clouds in Iraq, especially near the borders.
Satellite observation of military activity along Iraq's
border is easy. Since the Kuwait invasion, Saddam
has not demonstrated any international aggression.
He seems more interested in dealing with internal problems
from the Kurds and Shi'ites. With the current state
of his military and the intense scrutiny, he has very
little ability to engage such projects. In regards
to his violent war with Iran, that was completely
under United States' support and approval. In fact,
during the infamous "Iran-Contra Scandal" for
which Oliver North and John Poindexter were convicted
of felonious and treasonous behavior, America was actually
arming both sides of the war, and using the secret money
to fund their dirty war in Nicaragua. As for Kuwait,
Saddam firmly believed that he had American support or
at least neutrality on his invasion of Kuwait.
Right up until that moment, Saddam was a special friend
of America in the Middle East. Something mysterious
happened after he invaded Kuwait, and there is
good reason to believe that George Bush Sr. did not react
the way he did because of the invasion itself. I
can't really imagine what was the real cause, but it sure
appears that Saddam
was led into the invasion by the American State Department
and the counsel of Henry Kissinger, then they used
it as an excuse to "take him out." But,
that is mere speculation on my part. It could be a variation
on the skinhead approach to recruitment--we conquered
Kuwait (where the port and oil are) with Saddam's army,
and made it look like we rescued them. Now Kuwait
is eager to have us as a friend and protector. Absolute
speculation, indeed, but is it so implausible? Has
the "oilygarchy" given us reason to be suspicious
of their motives?
No wonder so many people around
the world now list George W. Bush as a bigger threat to
world peace than Saddam Hussein, even if it weren't true.
One
in three British fear Bush more than Saddam, and they
are our closest ally in the Bush War. Jessica
Tuchman Mathews astutely noted that Germany,
Pakistan, Brazil and France have all recently shown big
political wins for politicians running on anti-American
platforms, and this only two years after the whole world
joined us in grief and solidarity over 9/11. These
were also very close allies of ours too. This is
a sure sign that something is very wrong. Bush has
utterly squandered that goodwill. Undoubtedly, Bush
and Rove are trying to spin this as moral failure on the
part of everyone else.
Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.
4) Inspections don't work: This one is perhaps
the most blatantly false, and the one they work hardest
to support. Take a closer look at the evidence.
When weapons inspectors and human rights observers are
active and supported by high tech surveillance, Iraq can't
attack us and Saddam can't abuse his people.
There is a very simple solution to most of the problems
in the world: cameras. I wouldn't be so naive to
claim that cameras without goodwill and food can work,
but food and goodwill fit more comfortably with cameras
than with bombs and guns. Guns and bombs without
cameras create more and more abuses.
Human rights violations occur in countries with no international
media presence. Cameras and human rights observers
can change the world. It takes military force behind
the scenes to back the cameras up, of course. Coercive
inspections are a rational and just approach. Jessica
Tuchman Mathews president of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) provides
a brilliant discussion with Bill Moyers on this very issue.
Click
here for her documentation, and click here to read
the transcript
of this brilliant interview. When inspectors
with cameras arrived in Iraq, what did Saddam do?
He released
people from his prisons. Even dictators hate
to do things that look bad on TV.
In Afghanistan there were no inspectors or human
rights observers. In that utter isolation they were
able to hatch a plot to destroy the World Trade Center.
Take a look at North Korea--no weapons inspectors and
no human rights observers. On the other side, look
at El Salvador. Human rights observers and election
monitors alone changed the face of that country.
Further, the countries that were most devastated by war
(Afghanistan and Iraq) are the very hotbeds of anti-American
sentiment and militants. The fact is, WAR
DOES NOT WORK. ONLY INSPECTIONS AND
HUMAN RIGHTS OBSERVERS WORK. The conservatives are
loathe to admit this, and will go to infinite lengths
to hide this FACT. That Saddam may have WMDs is
not proof that weapons inspections do not work.
We pulled our weapons inspectors out under Clinton, so
all of Iraq's current capabilities are the product of
a lack of weapons inspections.
It is obvious in light of the conflict between America,
Germany and France that the underlying motive is a FEAR
of weapons inspections on the part of America. Could it
be that they fear the inspectors would find lots of "made
in America" labels? If Germany and France are
protesting the war because of selfish motives along these
lines, why are they pushing for inspections, while
America is obviously eager to blow up every trace of Halliburton
equipment and American weapons?
An even more important element that undermines their
argument is the obvious bad faith in which the weapons
inspections and war threats are being carried out.
Since the beginning of March, Saddam has been cooperating
with inspectors much more so than before, and destroying
the weapons that the inspectors had not been able to find.
The disarming is frenzied. It will take time.
But, in spite of the rapid disarmament, which was the
stated goal of the entire operation, this is not being
acknowledged as a sufficient reason to stop the war.
The continued pressure for war verifies an assertion that
Saddam made before this whole charade began: he is damned
if he does and damned if he doesn't. Bush turns
everything Saddam does into a reason to bomb. All
this suggests that the war is not about WMDs in the first
place, and, a fortiori, not about creating
an effective method of disarming Iraq. (Check
out this article) There is a mountain of evidence
that the the Bush
administration has been intentionally deceiving
us and the entire
WMD argument may be false. [1,
2,
3
] Senator Jay
Rockefeller is calling for an FBI probe of who forged
documents used by Bush to support the war--in simple
terms, the documents are certainly forgeries.
Even Powell isn't denying it. The Bush administration
submitted them to the UN as truth. They are claiming
to be victims of deception on this. The only question
is, who created them? Could it be Carl Rove?
Even more bizarre and offensive, Bush's goons are conducting
surveillance on UN Security Council members. These
are the tactics of gangsters, not the leaders of the "exceptionalist"
moral police force of the planet. The mere idea that we
should have even the smallest degree of respect or trust
for people like this is comical and ironic in the extreme.
Even if everything that Richard
Perle asserts in this PNAC document is true, many
people around the world have come to regard the Bush administration
with deepest suspicion and disrespect. One good
point Perle makes is that if the United Nations does not
back up their resolutions with some teeth, the UN will
destroy its own relevance. On the other hand, if
irresponsible, arrogant, aggressive leaders did not present
false and misleading evidence or coerce the voting participants
like gangsters, then the United Nations wouldn't be put
into such uncomfortable situations. What Perle seems
to miss is the very likely possibility that everyone hates
and fears Bush's administration so much that they are
resorting to sacrificing the UN to slow down and interfere
with his reckless decisions. The strategy has
been rather effective, but as of March 17th, the game
came to an end.
It is significant, I believe, that the main thrust of
Perle's attack is directed against the concept of inspections.
Just to drive home the thrust of my argument for
inspections, notice how during the Cuban Missile Crisis
and the Bosnian and Kosovar wars images and hard evidence
were used to elicit public consent. How many images
of Iraq are you seeing now? How many Iraqi citizens
are you hearing call out for an American invasion?
How about Afghanistan? Are you seeing lots of images
of how wonderful things are there now? Do you see
anything at all of Afghanistan--especially in the Western
and Southern parts of the country? My point is that
these people want more than anything else to prevent us
from seeing what is really going on there. It isn't
so much that they fear Saddam. They fear inspections
and uncensored media. They fear human rights observers.
This leads back to a common argument posed by the hawks--the
weapons inspectors were never intended to find weapons.
This skewed approach may be the hope and understanding
of George W. Bush and Paul Wolfowitz when they put the
proposal together. However, we can't ignore
the fact that Bush himself claimed that the purpose of
this war is to make the world safer. The American
public and the world at large can support such wars only
in terms of the general war on terrorism. Bush obviously
has different plans, but his venal motives cannot determine
global policy. If Bush's original plan was to go
in and prove Saddam was hiding things so as to justify
bombing him, then this is not the same thing at all.
We were horn-swoggled by a Texan. Permanent weapons
inspectors can easily assure that he doesn't cause us
trouble. Bombing him is extremely likely to spawn
more terrorism. This suggests very strongly to many
of us who oppose the war that there is no interest on
their part in making the world safer. Instead, they
seem to be trying to create a new eternal
war to replace the Cold War, for which these old fart
imperialists and fascists in the Bush cabinet can justify
The Patriot
Act [1],
neofascism,
enormous
military spending, a ridiculous
missile defense program and a massive transfer of
wealth from middle class tax payers to wealthy corporations
that profit from war, construction and petroleum--the
biggest exercise in American Socialism for the Rich.
It would appear that another motive underlies this cavalier
campaign: undermining the United Nations and NATO so that
the US is free to act unilaterally to accomplish the goals
of the PNAC. Many people on the extreme right
believe that breaking away from the UN and NATO is a good
thing. Most Americans, including me, think this
is a terrifying plan.
The "Shock and Awe" strategy seems, to my untrained
eyes, a test of new weaponry and strategy like Hitler
and Franco carried out in Guernica. If he honestly
intends to warn Iraqis of the incoming missiles so they
can get out of the way, then how in the hell is this attack
supposed to have any effect on Saddam? In other
words, for all intents and purposes, the opponents of
this war can see no other explanation than the idea that
Bush intends to punish the Iraqis for not overthrowing
Saddam. This isn't strategy, rather, it's gibbering
idiocy.
Perhaps the most important aspect of all this pro-inspections
information is that the rest of the world knows about
it--in spite of Rupert "Goebels" Murdoch's efforts
to keep it all out of the American media. That means
that this information is seriously undermining the image
of Bush and America in the world at large. Anti-Americanism
is at the highest levels in the history of our country.
Bush has inspired the largest protests in the history
of the planet, and the most fevered organization of grass
roots resistance. If the right wing were really
concerned about the growing anti-Americanism they see
among liberals in America, then why respond by being more
aggressive and insulting--thus verifying the accusations
of arrogance, violence, hatred, racism, and McCarthyism?
Finally, the anti-war movement (myself included) needs
to consider the possibility that the Bush War may go well
for him, and a puppet democracy may be established that
will distract Americans enough to go back to watching
sitcoms and "reality" TV. There are terrible
ironies lurking behind the scenes here. If the anti-war
movement "wins" and Saddam isn't overthrown,
then the oppression of Iraqis by him and by our sanctions
will continue. If Bush loses in an ugly war that
creates more terrorism, less stability and further destroys
our economy, then the whole world will suffer. If
we lose, and Bush gets his superficially happy Iraq, we
need to think hard about what to do next. A Bush
War victory could be an effective trump against the liberal
anti-war movement in general. Mark
LeVine has an excellent discussion of the future of the
anti-war movement on Alternet.
Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.
5) Public Enemy #1: The "biggest threat"
argument is related to the first three. The rebuttals
are there also. Basically, why is he such a threat
when Pakistan clearly poses a more profound threat and
sticky problem? There is North
Korea too. If you don't think North Korea is
more dangerous, and that their leader isn't a much worse
lunatic than Saddam Hussein, let
the Democratic People's Republic of Korean official web
site change your mind. (Even Saddam would never
dream of something this deranged, eh?) Osama
Bin Laden is still alive, and there is a growing mountain
of evidence that his family isn't so distant from him
as we have been told. [click for more
info on the Bin Laden family. See also Michael
Moore's Farenheit 9-11 and the 9-11 Commission Report.]
Use your back button to return to pro-war argument list.
6) Leftists & Bush Haters: Although
there is enough truth in this accusation to give this
argument some traction, there are some glaring contradictions
and exceptions that make this the biggest and most vicious
lie of the pro-war movement. This argument is being
used to fuel Neo-McCarthyism. They use the War on
Terror as an excuse to attack and discredit liberals. This
is especially true of the Murdoch Propaganda and Hatred
Network. It shouldn't surprise us to
discover that one of the biggest cheerleaders for China's
repressive dictatorship is Murdoch. The Chinese
government just adores him for the support he gives them
in his many media outlets.
In 2002, Mr Rupert Murdoch's News Corp
signed an agreement with Hunan Broadcasting Group,
another local conglomerate formed under state mandate,
to co-produce and broadcast television programmes.
And only two days ago, News Corp told the Asian Wall
Street Journal that it was discussing other possible
ventures with Chinese companies in print and radio. [Asia
Pacific Media]
The true offensive front in this war
is clearly the right wing.
Michael
Thomasky's spot-on editorial about William Kristol's attack
on the anti-war movement is a must read. This
quote strikes at the heart of the obvious partisanship
and political ideology lurking behind this war.
He is speaking in general of the partisan behavior of
the Republicans at this point.
But mainly what happened is that their guy won -- hijacked
-- the White House, so they didn't have anyone in power
to hate anymore. Suppose that President Gore were in
the White House, and suppose that his military had not
captured Osama bin Laden after 18 months; or that anthrax
had been mailed to Trent Lott and Jesse Helms' offices,
and Gore's Justice Department, 17 months later, didn't
even have a suspect! It's obvious to anyone with
a mind that the Republicans, and Kristol, would be doing
to Gore exactly what they did to Clinton in 1998.
This is a splendid example of understatement.
For those who don't know who William Kristol is, and wonder
why he is anxious to use his media clout to further heat
up the ideological chasm in America, check these bio links:
[1,
2,
3,
4, 5
]
Let's take a look at demographics. Within America,
the predilection to criticize the president in this matter
is not bound to class, communism, age, or even political
party. The protests look very much like a combination
of mainstream Democrats and Greens. The more extreme
anarchist groups and the ominous kids with ski masks seen
at WTO protests are curiously absent from the marches
I have seen since last August. However, there
is a surprising amount of cultural diversity in these
protests, in comparison to previous protests. Most
important, the crowds are full of many older Americans,
and parents with children. The crowds are definitely
not predominantly younger, as we saw in the Vietnam protests.
Islam and Race as a Factor
The protesting crowds are overwhelmingly white, and I
have yet to see a visible Muslim. I have
Muslim friends. Fear of racist reprisal and fatalistic
resignation are the reasons they give for staying out
of the marches.
There are a few Muslims who support the war--expatriate
Iraqis have every reason to want Saddam out of power.
Kurds are enthusiastic, though they are also very nervous
about what Turkish armies might do to them during the
war. The dictatorship of Qatar is quickly becoming more American than
America. Powerful US military presence ensures stable
production of Qatar's offshore natural gas. Together
these have been an economic bonanza for the country.
They currently have free medical care and education, and
they still don't pay any taxes. It's all quite new
for them. When I hear loudmouth conservatives complain
that lib'rals should just move to Cuba, I like to tell
them about Qatar. It sounds like tax-hating Republican
voter heaven. They should just move there.
Turkey has a vested interest in the war, due to their
desire to squash and suppress Kurds, and the Kurdish predilection
to terrorism. It is a bit ironic that the two most
secular Muslim countries (Turkey and Iraq) are both so
interested in harassing Kurds. It's a situation
not unlike the Palestinian one in Israel, except here
we have Arabic Sunni/Ba'ath Muslims (non-Wahabi) persecuting
Kurdish Wahabi Muslims. The Middle East has plenty
of internal problems and disagreements.
When we look beyond these parties with vested interests,
the support for war among Muslim countries is very weak
and fragile.
There is every reason to believe that any compliance
we have seen was due more to pressure and fear of the
United States rather than an honest moral and intellectual
decision. In spite of the vicious Iran-Iraq war,
there are very few Iranians supporting the war.
They have the largest Northern border with Iraq, and there
just isn't any talk about British or American troops stationed
in Iran. Even Saudi Arabia is being more subdued than
usual. Syria and Jordan are helping Iraq smuggle
oil and goods across the border. African
Muslims are vehemently opposed to the war. Egypt
has a puppet-gangster government of American yes-men,
though now that war has started, they are turning against
Bush. Locally, my Muslim friends come from many
countries, including America. I have yet to meet
one who supports the war, though I know they exist.
Yet, among these many Muslims, you will not find a single
one who will deny that Saddam is evil. They
tend to see the Palestinian problem to be the main issue,
and this is a distraction. Israel's
terrorism since 1967 compared to Saddam's since 1978...
Christian Faith as a Factor
At every war protest I have attended, the number of Christian
clerics and laypeople with religiously motivated picket
signs has been large--perhaps as much as 1/4-1/3 of the
entire crowd. They make up the single largest demographic
group represented in these marches. The
Vatican and the American Council of Bishops oppose
the war. According to one source, a personal message
delivered to Bush from the Pope states that if he goes
into Iraq, he goes without God. Numerous churches
have taken official stances against the war. [1,
2,
3,
4] Undoubtedly,
there are churches who are behind the president on this
moronic escapade. They are certainly among those
apocalyptic, pro-Israel lovers of death, destruction and
Jesus. Fortunately for the sake of the human
race, these vocal and wealthy brutes are in the minority.
Military Training and Employment as a Factor
Norman
Schwarzkopf, the general that led Gulf War 1, is making
some very troubling remarks about this war and Donald
Rumsfeld. A very large group of veterans,
consisting of many Gulf War vets, has sent a protest letter
to Bush with the signatures of 887 military veterans
ranging from Vice Admirals, a Brigadier General, many
lieutenants, captains, majors... Just wait--there
is a big swell of anti-war sentiment within the military
at all ranks. Back in August of 2002, Bush's
father and senior advisors (like James Baker III,
Henry Kissinger and Schwarzkopf) informed him that they
believe that going in without strong international support
is extremely dangerous. His own father is opposed
to war without international support?
Perhaps the most compelling and damning argument
against the simple-minded patriotism of the Republicans is
the fact that at every turn the Bush Administration has
been working to screw our soldiers in every way they can
think of---keeping them over there for ridiculous tours
with no end in sight, cutting their pay and benefits all
over the place, the list goes on and on. The
best single presentation of the outrages committed by the
people who pretend to support our troops is this
wonderful little video advert.
Pacifism as a Factor
In this pre-emptive battle to stop a pre-emptive war,
we have seen a variety of protests with a variety of motives.
There are many pacifists in the movement--most of whom
are devout Christians who sing religious hymns.
Personally, I have a complex view of war. Pacifism
is my ideal, though I understand that sometimes war is
necessary. However, I believe that extreme situations,
and very hard evidence are essential. Above all,
war can only be executed with massive international approval.
But, I'd like to take a look at an important case.
Recently, an important diplomat, John Brady Kiesling,
resigned after twenty years of diplomatic service.
He was the first to call for and lobby for a war
in Bosnia, way back in 1994. He believed that it
was a just cause, and plenty of evidence existed.
Americans were shown images and given evidence, and soon
we were at war against Serbia. He worked through
Reagan, Bush, Clinton and now Bush Jr. It took Bush
Jr. to drive him over the edge. It was clearly not
a case of pacifism. This was a measured and careful
decision based upon the flimsy evidence and absurd policy
Bush is promoting.
Consider this, if war is justified, why is the media
not showing us images of what is happening in Iraq?
Why have they stooped to deception, coercion and plagiarism?
Why did the much-awaited smoking gun presented by Colin
Powell create LESS support for war, instead of more?
As noted above, many veterans are opposed to the war too.
It is clear that a lack of evidence and a sense that the
war will be neither just, nor effective are much more
important factors.
Ideology as a Factor
One of the better
editorials that shatters this absurd idea is by Michael
Tomasky--hardly a party line Democrat, or even less
a Naderite or McGovern peacenik. But, from a more
Republican-leaning direction, look at the following:
Some Republicans are backing down from their Bush War
support: prominent Republican Senators Dick Armey,
Richard
Lugar and Chuck Hegel. The pro-corporate, libertarian/fiscal
conservative Cato
Institute (who were predominantly Bush voters in 2000)
have not a single kind word to say about this war.
Lew
Rockwell is another example of just such a fiscal
conservative, pro-capitalist, Clinton-hating anti-war
activist. A conservative coalition bought
a full-page ad in the New York Times to protest the war.
Expect more Republicans to break ranks now after this
nutty
little stunt by Bush, in which he accuses Republicans
of not being interested in homeland security. In
spite of Colin Powell's obvious talent for playing the
Uncle Tom role, it's starting to look like he is going
to become either a
fall guy for the innumerable failures of the Bush administration's
international policies, or he will become their Brutus.
Pat Buchanan has some interesting
thoughts on the failure of the Bush War campaign.
Perhaps the most damning article I have read comes from
the quite conservative Paul
Craig Roberts, who suggests quite clearly that Bush
is on a reckless path of self-destruction that may end
in a war crimes trial or impeachment. Mr. Roberts says in another article that
the
Republican party won't survive this war on Iraq.
Even the
country western music star Natalie Maines of the Dixie
Chicks went way out on a limb to criticize this war.
Alienating much of their audience, she has made a lame
apology. Some adroit satirists made a parody of
her apology that I find absolutely fitting and appropriate.
Click
here.
I heard a recent poll that indicated 60% of Republicans
are opposed to war. It seems implausibly high.
Whatever the real number is, I have personally met quite
a few historical Republicans who are not behind Bush.
That's because they are true fiscal conservatives and
libertarians, and they know that this war is going to
cause great damage to the economy and to our civil liberties. Whatever
you want to say about Mr. Bush, you can't say that he
has done anything toward shrinking government.
He has created more administrative and executive positions
than LBJ, and he has destroyed our economy. At the
protest marches I have seen a surprising number of blue
collar workers. There is clearly a growing and organized
contingent of working class anti-war protesters.
Bush is starting to lose his grip on his core of AM radio
listeners. The best possible outcome of this would
be the final discrediting of Murdoch's
Media Minions.
Finally, the most significant rebuttal to the argument
is the large number of Democratic congress members who
support this idiotic war. It could
be that they are terrified to speak out against the war.
Bush's media controlled police state has been amazingly
effective at manufacturing passive consent from fear.
The only Democrats who are directly confronting Bush on
this are the ones no longer in office: Clinton and Gore.
Oh, and then there's Byrd, who is still in office, and
who has redeemed himself to some extent from his KKK past
by making some of the most eloquent anti-war arguments.
Poll Watching
Polling data offers a bewildering picture of public opinion.
It also shows that the way the question is asked is very
important. Clearly, the media propaganda has persuaded
many Americans that Saddam is a threat. However,
we can also see a great deal of anxiety over the idea
of bombing Iraq without international support. We
can also see Bush's approval declining. Still, I
find it bizarre that anyone can take seriously polls conducted
by telephone in an age where caller ID, voice mail and
answering machines mean that the results are scientifically
invalid. Are there not demographic determinants
involved in describing the category of people who either
do not have technology to defend them from unidentified
callers, or who willing pick up the phone to answer such
calls? Besides, even if these polls are accurate,
they tell us more about the effects of media propaganda
than they do about the degree to which people have informed
opinions. Polls are used by politicians to support decisions
they have already made. Given that the polls are
disseminated via the conservative controlled media, I
have never trusted those numbers any more than I trust
NASDAQ numbers. Nevertheless, the rather conservative
Christian Pew Charitable Trust poll from February 20th
shows a
further erosion in American citizens supporting Bush.
This poll gives pretty solid evidence that Colin Powell's
plagiarized and falsified presentation to the United Nations
turned more Americans away from the Bush
administration. Even the conservative media
channels appear to be abandoning Bush slowly. I
even heard Chris Matthews criticizing Bush's insistence
on Iraq instead of Al Qaida. The tides are shifting
now on the brink of what seems to be an inevitable war.
Nationality and International Politics as a Factor
|