Inspect Iraq, Don't Attack
The cartoonist Ted Rall caricatures George W. Bush as a generalissimo, in a uniform bedecked with medals. These days, I can't think of a more appropriate image for the man in the White House.
The new Bush Doctrine is that the USA reserves the right to invade anybody, any time, with no evidence, because the USA feels threatened. I cannot imagine the United States letting any other nation on adopt the same policy.
The cartoonist Ted Rall caricatures George W. Bush as a generalissimo, in a uniform bedecked with medals. These days, I can't think of a more appropriate image for the man in the White House.
The new Bush Doctrine is that the USA reserves the right to invade anybody, any time, with no evidence, because the USA feels threatened. I cannot imagine the United States standing for any other nation on earth to have the same policy.
The translation is "we're bigger than you are, so we can do whatever we want" to the rest of the world. We might get away with this policy for a time, but the aftershocks of this unprecedented policy are going to haunt us for decades to come. Would we prefer the world's fear, or its respect?
Before we consider the evidence supporting an attack on Iraq, I think it's important to remember that opposing Bush doesn't mean supporting Saddam Hussein.
He is a ruthless dictator who oppresses his own people.
He has endured a harsh embargo to preserve his ability to assemble horror weapons: gas, biowar, and he's trying for nuclear.
He has used gas in the past, both on his own civilians and on Iranian soldiers.
He has invaded two neighbors.
He has constantly threatened Israel -- a nation that he doesn't even share a border with, yet he has sent troops against it in every war Israel has been in.
He has disregarded the terms of his surrender from the last war, and ignored the U.N. Security Council's resolutions.
Even now, Saddam claims Bush's war plans are part of a world Zionist conspiracy. But none of it explains why we must go to war right now, without debate or discussion.
Given this evidence, let's see what the White House has to say about why we must attack Iraq right now. Um. Because he might get nuclear weapons at some point. Because he's a bad man.
Are you convinced to go to war now? I'm not. Let's be absolutely clear: I'd like to see Hussein gone. I very much don't want him to have nuclear weapons.
Once he has nuclear weapons, we won't be able to threaten him any more, let alone attack him. But there is no evidence that he's suddenly more dangerous now, and we must deal with him before elections.
Bush's war drum beating stinks. During the summer, Bush officials first floated ideas to attack Iraq, then in August (when people don't pay as much attention to the news), they pretended they weren't going to do it, then after Labor Day, when people start paying attention again, suddenly we're all about war Right Now.
Is this any way to run a democracy, let alone a democracy that's going to do something we haven't done in modern history: attack another nation pre-emptively, without even pretending to give evidence for it?
If Iraq were a genuine threat, right now, the President of the United States of America should have been giving evidence to the nation, and preparing us for war, instead of wasting the month of August pretending it wasn't important.
The President of the United States should be unifying the people behind his plan, instead of simply saying, "I'm going to war -- you're with me or against me."
Is there any evidence that this operation is anything but a political ploy for domestic consumption?
Have we gone to war for the benefit of polls before, in modern, enlightened times?
I'd say, yes. We invaded both Grenada and Panama without reason. (Remember those?)
Both were military operations against a defenseless foe, both still haven't been explained to the public as to why we needed to do it, and both stank of political opportunism.
If anybody cares to explain to me why it was militarily important to invade those nations, I'll be glad to listen. Really.
If there really was a risk Iraq was close to having nuclear weapons, I'd say a war might be a good idea. I might even agree if we seriously thought Iraq might have them within the next five years.
El generalissimo wouldn't even have to reveal our information-gathering secrets: "We have evidence that Iraq is close to having the bomb." But the generalissimo doesn't even respect us enough to make this argument.
We're going to war because Saddam is a bad guy in the generalissimo's eyes. Perhaps it's saying W has some scruples-he'll mislead us, but he won't give us an out-and-out lie, making up evidence where there is none (unlike Lyndon Johnson). But he clearly doesn't respect us enough to even bother trying to justify this war.
So far, I have not managed to come up with a single good reason to attack Iraq Right Now. Perhaps the White House can. Meanwhile, pay careful attention to what we are getting.
El generalissimo wants us to attack Iraq because he says so, and we have to trust him, because he won't tell us why.
El generalissimo wants a blank check from Congress to do whatever he wants, militarily.
El generalissimo claims a new doctrine that essentially says the USA (that's us, folks-you and me) has the right to invade any country for any reason, and we just have to trust him.
I could swallow all of this more easily if I COULD trust him. But El generalissimo has given me absolutely no reason to trust him. In fact, we have evidence that this administration and its supporters have lied, and have admitted to lying repeatedly about politics.
See Joshua Marshall's marvelous webpage http://talkingpointsmemo.com/index.html for just one recent and egregious example. Pay special attention to the section on privatizing social security.
Frankly, folks, if the White House wants me to support the taking of lives of foreigners and of our teens and young adults, they'd better show me a reason I should trust them.
Finally, does the White House honestly believe that an American foreign policy based on the right to invade anybody, any time, isn't going to have a bad effect?
Consider: there are only two ways to be sure the USA isn't going to invade you:
One is to do whatever the generalissimo wants you to.
Two is to acquire nuclear weapons, so that the Americans wouldn't dare do something stupid.
Would you feel safer in a world where every problem state (hello Syria, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Indonesia, etc.) is in a mad rush to get nukes so they won't be the next Iraq?
Let's stop this utterly insane stirring of international hornet's nests, especially when it's simply for the benefit of holding onto Congress in a midterm election. Now.
© 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.
|
