BUSH’S WANTON
WAR
HAMMERNEWS by Michael Hammerschlag Oct 12, 2002
Stephen Flynn lecture audio report- author of Hart-Rudman Report on continued
US vulnerabilities to terrorists - Council on Foreign Relations
Psychopath Saddam isn’t right about many things, but
he may be about the primary motivation behind
Bush’s push for war: vengeance… specifically for Saddam’s plot
to kill his father in Kuwait in ’93. The
President finally let it slip in a chat:
“He’s a bad man- he tried to kill my father.”
Attempting to murder a President may in fact
be justification for removal with extreme
prejudice, and there are few people in the
world more deserving of the honor than Saddam,
but a decade is a long time to wait, and
the results and reaction to a general attack
on the devastated Iraqi people and economy
might be far more costly than any supposed
increase in security.
Punishing
ones enemies is a central tenet of the Bush family philosophy- GW’s main
political job for years was as an enforcer against administration officials who
dared divert from the his father’s wishes. It’s no accident that family wise
man Brent Scowcroft urged moderation on the hotheaded eldest son. For
Schröeder’s crime of willful opposition, Bush plans to punish the Germans- but
wasn’t our main purpose for a half century to teach them an aversion to war? In
his first act as President, Bush cancelled the Clinton cap on exploding
California energy prices (up to 100-fold increases, by criminal price fixing
among generators)- as a result Enron’s revenues ballooned from $25 billion in
first half 2000 to $100 billion in the same period 2001- even assuming a justified
doubling in prices- still $30 to $40 billion in criminal windfall profits
ripped from the pockets of voters who had given his opponent a 12 point victory
and handed to his biggest contributor. This shockingly corrupt and
unreported act is still the iceberg that might sink the Bush
administration.
Saddam
is a monster- he should have been killed after he set the Kuwait oil fields on
fire and fouled the entire Persian Gulf*- if he could be removed
directly, through commando actions or bombing his palaces, doubles, and
refuges- fine; but what is contemplated is a general attack- devastating the
Iraqi infrastructure and people yet again. Judging by our actions in
Afghanistan, where we haven’t fixed
one road, Bush won’t rebuild or rehabilitate Iraq after another war-
leaving our occupying troops among a bitter hateful populace, a open sore to
the billion Muslims of the world. Don’t we build anything anymore? Talk
now is a military occupation lasting 5 years (costing up to $200 billion).
Credible reports have upwards of half-million Iraqis dying from third world
diseases like typhoid or dysentery over the last 11 years; because in ’91 we
bombed Baghdad’s water purification and sewage treatment plants, covering the
cradle of civilization with excrement, then embargoed chlorine for a decade
(because it’s used in making poison gases). Reattaching Iraq to the world could
result in a flood of fervent anti-American terrorists. We don’t even know
how many were killed in the Gulf War, because the press was treated as the
enemy, and our military never deigned to tell us.
After our tacit endorsement of Sharon’s harsh
treatment of the Palestinians, an invasion
of Iraq would convince the Moslem world that
we are at war with them- and the pool of
available terrorists would swell from a few
thousand delusional lunatics to millions.
Horrors like the Bali bombing could become
routine. Our struggle against al Qaida would
greatly suffer, as Islamic governments wouldn’t
help or even allow us capture Bin Laden’s
minions. Even European countries- virulently opposed to an invasion- would cool
their cooperation in our struggle against the 9-11 killers, except for England-
now the 51st state (even they had a ¼ million person demonstration
against war). Major nations of the UN Security Council: Russia, France, China (which holds the Presidency of the
UNSC for November)- are deadset against an invasion- if Bush ignores and
defies the United Nations- there will be lasting damage to world stability and
unity. We would become the Ugly Americans, heedlessly flaunting our arrogance
and power. Bush has shown contempt for every international agreement- including
ones, like the Non-proliferation, Biological weapon, + World Court- that are
absolutely essential for American security- only because of the idiotic
obsessions of the extreme right wing. He doesn’t have 1/10 of the foreign
policy acumen of his father- who was a master of international consensus
diplomacy. GB1 didn’t ‘finish the job’ in 1991 for some good reasons- the
difficulty of occupying and rehabilitating a brutal Middle Eastern
dictatorship, which isn’t being mentioned by the armchair warriors of the new
Bush regime. At some point, we will have to attack enemies quickly, without
notice or permission from the world community.
This is not it. An unnecessary bullying war
will lose us that good will and freedom of
action, when it may be desperately required.
Our greatest defense has always been our
principles of fairness and justice; violating
them would breach that wall.
Bush
has provided no proof for any connection between Saddam and Al Qaida- the
alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi diplomat in Prague had to be
embarrassingly disavowed. Of the hundreds of Bin
Laden’s satellite calls before the embassy bombings to London, Yemen, Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, USA, Pakistan, .. there wasn’t one to Iraq.
Bush’s changing rationales remind me of Chevy Chase’s ‘land shark’. Saddam
with nukes is a chilling prospect- but it still that- only a prospect. If he
warrants an invasion, what of Iran, which has killed 400-700 Americans in their
Hezbollah Beirut (Marine barracks and Embassy) and perhaps Lockerbie bombings.
Russia is building a nuclear plant for them, presumably the Israelis can be
counted on to annihilate it like they did the Iraqi reactor in 1981, but
where’s our logic? Al Qaida members have reportedly taken refuge in
Iran. We have far more to fear from diversion of nukes in Pakistan or Russia
after an Islamic coup or attack than we do from isolated and sequestered
Saddam. What of the paranoid freak on a permanent bad-hair day in North Korea,
who has let up to 2 million of his people starve, rather than open his
kingdom to the world? He is close to making nukes too.
As
sad as it is, this conflict is largely driven by politics- the President’s
popularity rests on his martial prowess- without a conflict, the electorate’s
attention may turn towards the devastated economy, deficits, and corporate
scandals lapping at the feet of the Bush administration. Indeed, without 9-11,
his popularity percentage might now be in the 30’s. The tens of billions this
war would cost and the instability would also crush the beaten down economy and
stock market- Bin Laden’s last instruction. All Americans now suffer from Gulf
War Syndrome, the idea- because of the spectacular success of wars in the
Gulf, Bosnia, Serbia, and Afghanistan, that wars can be fought painlessly, with
almost no casualties. But a cornered Saddam with a price on his head will use
all weapons at his disposal, and we haven’t fought in a city in 34 years (Hue).
A war now will damage American security in a dozen ways: it's the wrong war in
the wrong place with the wrong person. Israel just blew up a dozen civilians in
Gaza (the most densely populated place in the world) with our helicopters
and missiles- making peace there should be a priority. Inexplicably,
cravenly, Congress has sleepwalked into authorizing military force (against a
majority of US opinion: 51% to 38% -Zogby†)- perhaps with the notion that Bush
is bluffing, and Saddam will back down. But Saddam, who could have left Kuwait
with all his booty on Jan 14, 1991 and emerged unscathed.. can be counted on to
do the most self-destructive thing.
If
we invade Iraq, it will be only because George Bush wants to… and that’s
not a good enough reason.
*The reason we didn’t was because I believe GB1 made an explicit threat
to Saddam that we would kill him if he used poison gas or bioweapons; conversely that meant we couldn’t kill him
if he kept to the bargain. US sharpshooters literally had Saddam in the
crosshairs during the gulf war from a spyhole, but didn’t fire (though their
escape was dubious).
† Question- “If there were thousands of Iraqi
casualties (which is inevitable-MH), support
or oppose war against Iraq?” Poll
conducted Sept 25-27. ± 3.2%. Zogby was consistently the most accurate in
the 2000 Presidential race.
Michael Hammerschlag has written commentaries
+ articles for Seattle Times, Providence Journal, Honolulu Advertiser,
Columbia Journalism Review, Media Channel, & Moscow News, Tribune, and
Guardian. His website is http://mikehammer.tripod.com
e-mail: hammerschlag@bigfoot.com