Inspect Iraq, Don't Attack
"Remember the Maine." That slogan, fueled by yellow journalism led us into war -- an easy military victory but with a lingering painful aftermath. The Washington Post editors take issue with readers' complaints and even their choice of words: "For our part, we might begin with that phrase 'rush to war.' In fact there is nothing sudden or precipitous about our view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger."
Oh really? There may be more than some question about the validity of that view. There is no real evidence that Saddam poses a clear and present danger to Americans, much less "a grave danger." How do we know? The UN mandated inspectors tell us so.
As inspectors continue working, the significantly less-than-grave danger Saddam presents lessens with each passing week. What is gained by overriding the US domestic and world opinion strongly in favor of letting the inspectors continue disarming Saddam?
What then supports Bush's rush to war the Washington Post claims is so vital? What's the rush? That's the question the Post editorial begs. Are Bush officials and cheerleaders like the Pom-Pom Post pushing a "rush to war?" Well, of course they are. As mentioned, the inspections are working. In fact, they worked so well during the 1990s they discovered and destroyed more of Iraq's military might than all the coalition troops destroyed during the Persian Gulf War.
Of course the Post also glosses over some sticky points. If Saddam really "poses a grave danger," then why did Dick Cheney's corporation Halliburton help build up Iraq just a few years ago? How do we know this? The Washington Post told us in an article headlined: "Halliburton's Iraq Deals Greater Than Cheney Has Said, Affiliates Had $73 Million in Contracts," by Colum Lynch. The story appeared on The Washington Post's front page, June 23, 2001.
Here are the first few paragraphs from that story: "UNITED NATIONS -- During last year's presidential campaign, Richard B. Cheney acknowledged that the oil-field supply corporation he headed, Halliburton Co., did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries. But he insisted that he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. 'Iraq's different,' he said."
Lynch uncovered facts revealing that Cheney wasn't truthful: "According to oil industry executives and confidential United Nations records, however, Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer of the Dallas-based company."
Cheney knowingly lied about how the corporation he ran dealt with Saddam, according to Lynch: "Two former senior executives of the Halliburton subsidiaries say that, as far as they knew, there was no policy against doing business with Iraq. One of the executives also says that although he never spoke directly to Cheney about the Iraqi contracts, he is certain Cheney knew about them." Not long ago the Post considered these Cheney-Saddam links newsworthy. Too bad the editorial board shucked real journalism for the yellow variety.
Rather than push Bush's rush to war why doesn't the Post's editors ask important questions and demand answers? Answers its readers need to understand why Cheney and Bush want war so badly they can't wait? Post readers have to rely on foreign press reports. Such as this one published in the lndependent/UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/) reprinted at Common Dreams:
"The last time the United States went to war against Iraq, Dick Cheney did very nicely from it. Having served as Defense Secretary, and basked in the reflected glory of the US military's surprisingly rapid advance across the desert sands to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, he then managed to reap benefits of a very different kind once the war was over and he left government to become chief executive of Halliburton, the Texas-based oil services company."
"When the United Nations relaxed its sanctions regime in 1998 and permitted Iraq to buy spare parts for its oil fields, it was Halliburton, under Mr. Cheney's leadership, that cleaned up on the contract to repair war damage and get Saddam Hussein's oil pipes flowing at full capacity again."
Gumbel pointed out the similar enrichment the Bush coup of chicken hawks envision: "[M]any of the companies that stand to gain most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration."
Even more troubling facts undermine Bush's credibility. Consider the cries of anguish Bush and company shout concerning Saddam's sordid history. Using poison gas. Invading his neighbors. All of it. Now read what certain top Bush warmongers were doing at the time, when they could and should have done something to stop it. If they really cared about it at all:
"[S]ome of the President's closest confidants have shown extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one. Mr. Cheney, who has gone from warmonger to dealmaker and back to warmonger, is just one example." This might explain Mr. Cheney's odd absence from the pro-war drum and bugle parade.
"Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defense Secretary, has repeatedly raised the specter of Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. But in 1983, when Mr. Rumsfeld was President Reagan's special envoy to Iraq, he turned a blind eye to Iraqi use of nerve and mustard gas in its war with Iran, concentrating instead on forging a personal relationship with the Iraqi leader, then considered a valuable US ally. Mr. Rumsfeld was actually in Baghdad on the day the United Nations first reported Iraqi use of chemical weapons, but chose to remain silent...."
See: Fortunes of War Await Bush's Circle After Attacks on Iraq, by Andrew Gumbel, September 15, 2002: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0915-04.htm
Luckily many Washington Post readers see this jingoism disguised as patriotism for what it is. They decry the Post's commingling of the 9/11 attacks with the administration's vapid rationalizations for an equally perfidious attack against Iraq Bush desires.
Too bad the Post's editorial board turns a deaf ear to its readers' superior understanding and offers self-conscious and defensive double-talk such as the Washington Post Editorial of February 27, 2003, excerpted below.
See: 'Drumbeat' on Iraq? A Response to Readers, February 27, 2003; Page A26,: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8531-2003Feb26.html for the entire editorial.
"'I HAVE BEEN a faithful reader of The Washington Post for almost 10 years,' a recent e-mail to this page begins.' Recently, however, I have grown tired of your bias and endless drumbeating for war in Iraq.'"
The Post admits, "He's not the only one. The national and international debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and our editorials in favor of disarming the dictator, have prompted a torrent of letters, many approving and many critical. They are for the most part thoughtful and serious; the antiwar letters in particular are often angry and anguished as well."
Of course, because war gives rise to the most intense anguish imaginable. The reader laments: "It is truly depressing to witness the depths Washington Post editors have reached in their jingoistic rush to war."
The Post concedes "It's a serious charge, and it deserves a serious response. For our part, we might begin with that phrase 'rush to war.' In fact there is nothing sudden or precipitous about our view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger...."
"Nothing sudden or precipitous?" About a "grave danger?" Then why no calls for impeachment of Cheney and Rumsfeld for coddling and abetting this "grave danger?"
If Saddam is truly implicated in the 9/11 attacks, as Bush and others claim without providing any evidence, why was there no attack against Iraq long ago? If the danger is truly grave, why all the hand wringing in the Washington Post ?
If the pretexts for war are valid, why did the Bush Administration countenance any delay before attacking? If Saddam helped Al Queda attack us, why did Bush attack Afghanistan first? Why not attack Iraq soon after 9/11? Because Bush is lying. His rationale for war is irrational, and the Washington Post editors should say so, rather than support the mad rush to war.
However, their editorial recaps the Washington Post's support for a variety of military actions, of lesser degree and scope including the First (and hopefully only) Persian Gulf War. Post editors do not explain how Bush the elder, blinded by greed and arrogance, bungled diplomacy and essentially caused that war.
Bush I and James A. Baker III did this by instructing then-Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to assure Saddam the US would have no position on Arab vs. Arab conflicts -- including the nearly boiling over dispute with Kuwait. This after Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others cozied up to the man they now equate with Adolf Hitler. This while hypocritically branding others as appeasers.
Nowhere do the Post editors show any historical understanding that one Bush botched the situation to get us in this mess. Nor do they acknowledge that similar blind arrogance now threatens to make the mess worse.
Bush keeps telling us Saddam has been a looming threat for a dozen years. Assuming Bush is correct, it's long past time for him to round up his father, his VP and his Defense Secretary among others as "enemy combatants." If Saddam is this uncontrollable monster, these people helped him get that way!
Obviously that will never happen, and just as obviously this is all pure bunk. Enough of the charade. Saddam was not involved with the 9/11 attacks. Saddam poses no clear and present danger which could justify a massive invasion and long-term occupation of Iraq. The Post is wrong to call Saddam a "grave" or even a serious immediate threat to the United States. Here is irrefutable logic covering all the possibilities and exposing the facile fallacies underlying the rush to war:
Either Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction in sufficient quantity to threaten us -- and the experts who've investigated on the ground say he doesn't -- or else he does. If he doesn't, invading and occupying Iraq would be pointless and wrong.
However, even if Saddam does have such weapons in greater quantities than the best informed people tell us, letting the inspections work makes sense. Invading Iraq does not make any sense at all. Here's why:
If Saddam has these horrible weapons, either he's planning to use them against us or he isn't. He hasn't used them yet, so if he has them we could conclude that fear of an all out attack in reprisal deters Saddam. An attack would remove the deterrent by realizing Saddam's worst fear, changing the situation for the worse and making him more likely to everything he has against us.
If Saddam is already planning to use them against us, even at the risk of massive retaliation, he cannot do so now. He lacks the capability to deliver chemical or biological weapons against the US. As inspections progress, he's losing his capability to deliver weapons against regional targets.
If we invade as Bush's former friends of Saddam suggest, we will place a third of a million US troops within easy range of Saddam's wrath -- by Bush's admission. Also, we risk accidentally bombing any chemical or biological weapons facilities Iraq may have, unleashing the very horrors Bush claims he wants to prevent upon innocent Iraqis and our own troops.
Bush claims that if we don't attack Iraq quickly, Saddam might give these horrible weapons to Al Queda terrorists. Some Bush officials claim he already may have. Well, either Saddam already gave away WMD, or else he hasn't. If he hasn't -- and there's no reason to believe he has -- we're better off tracking down and destroying weapons rather than invading. That would only make Saddam desperate enough to give terrorists poison gas and / or bio-weapons.
That's if he hasn't already. If Saddam already gave WMD to terrorists, attacking Iraq is still the worst thing we could do. Killing 1000s of innocent Iraqis would make the terrorists that much more likely to use any weapons they do have. It would swell the ranks of terrorists encampments by "radicalizing" 100s or 1000s outraged by scenes of slaughter.
Finally, a full scale invasion and occupation of Iraq would drain away up to 100s of $billions we need to reinforce our national security at home. The Washington Post might be better served demanding some answers about what Bush's plans to invade, occupy and nation build Iraq will cost, and how long it might take. On the other hand, if we ignore the hypocritical and illogical assertions from the blind bungling Bush administration and let the inspectors remove the threat peacefully, we avoid all of these pitfalls.
"Remember the Maine?" It seems the Post editorial board can't even remember the last decade, the last time a Bush stumbled his way into war against Iraq, dragging us all behind him. But we should "Remember the Maine." That slogan signifies a failed experiment with empire building, as well as a warning for feckless "leaders" and a lesson for yellow journalists.
© Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by MikeHersh.com
and identified authors. MikeHersh.com invites you to broadcast
any material at this site, provided you identify the source as
MikeHersh.com. All print, Internet, email and other summaries, excerpts
or other written reproductions must
include this blurb and a link to http://www.MikeHersh.com.
|
