Bombing Iraq

 

It=s getting difficult to write about the Iraq situation, as with each day comes more information, so it is hard to keep abreast of this crisis.  As I write these lines (on the morning of Feb. 17, 2003) the latest is that there have been mass demonstrations all over the world against a war in Iraq, NATO has voted to support Turkey in case we bomb Iraq and the foreign ministers of 22 Arab nations called on all Arab countries to Arefrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq=s security, safety and territorial integrity.@  And Tony Blair rests his political future for his unrelenting support for Bush=s call for war (NY Times).

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is alive and well, as is Bin Laden and American=s are scared to death of another terrorist attack and all our so-called AHomeland Security@ can offer is duct tape and gas masks!  And the case against an invasion of Iraq keeps coming from both sides of the political spectrum, not just a few Aradicals@ of the Aleft.@  For instance, Charles Pena, Senior Defense Policy Fellow at the conservative Cato Institute, recently observed (citing the Pentagon as his source) that A12 nations with nuclear weapons programs, 13 with biological weapons, 16 with chemical weapons and 28 with ballistic missiles@ are Aemerging and existing threats to the United States.@  He then adds that Aonly one of these countries sits atop the second largest oil reserves in the world.@  This gives us a clue to what a lot of this is about.  More about this shortly.

Many of us have been down this road before - a road filled with lies, exaggerations, and distortions.  It happened during the Vietnam War.  I recall very vividly while I served in the Navy, stationed at the Naval Air Station in Memphis, Tennessee (1967-68) working at the legal office next to the brig. I had to interview servicemen who went AWOL, with many having been to Vietnam.  Many opened up to me and told me stories that conflicted with much of the official version coming out of Washington.  The exposures from the APentagon Papers@ and other sources left me with a deep sense of betrayal. I felt then that I had been lied to by my own government.  I have never trusted politicians and other Aofficials@ since this time.  As we embark what could very well be another Vietnam, I trust them even less today.

This distrust extends itself to the so-called Acase against Iraq@ presented seemingly so convincingly by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations.  Powell=s position is unraveling each day, despite kudos from all over the political spectrum. Despite the caution used by such allies as France and Germany, administration officials continue the same line: those who do not agree with the Bush administration are being Aduped@ by Saddam (it came from Colin Powell on Friday, Feb. 14 and from Condoleezza Rice on Sunday, Feb. 16).  This is a usual retort by those who apparently refuse to question those in Aauthority,@ who tirelessly wave the flag and put AI Love America@ or even AAmerica, Love it or Leave it@ (I actually saw this on a bumper sticker the other day) on their car windows or bumpers. They use fear to drum up support (the absurd Ahigh alert@ warnings from Homeland Security, for instance), such as dire warnings of what will happen it we don=t invade Iraq.  Rice echoed these warnings, bringing up images of Hitler and telling us we failed to Arespond to tyranny@in the 1930s suggesting that Ait is true today@ with Saddam.

As many have pointed out, so-called Aintelligence@ data is pieced together from a number of different sources, not all of which can be relied upon with 100% accuracy. Also, as anyone (such as myself) who has collected data can testify, Afacts@ can be interpreted in many different ways and all too often one sees what they want to see or have been told they are suppose to see.  For example, Powell cited rather fuzzy satellite photos of buildings with trucks parked nearby, but failed to mention that they represent some of the many sites the U.N. has been monitoring for months.  Hans Blix pointed some of this out in his presentation before the UN on Feb. 14.  And concerning the so-called missile sites, why didn’t Powell tell us that they have been under constant surveillance by U.N. inspectors?  Several missile test sites and a test stand mentioned by Powell have been inspected by the U.N. five times and are regularly monitored by inspectors.  So far, no problems. 

What about the alleged link between Iraq and al-Qaeda?  He bases this on rather flimsy evidence, such as from tortured detainees at Guantanamo Bay.  Moreover, the claim about the alleged terrorist training ground at a northern Iraq area called Ansar al-Islam is ridiculed by several sources.  It is well-known the contempt Bin Laden has for Saddam and vice versa.  May believe that an invasion of Iraq would bring them together (it is absurd to claim that Bin Laden=s call for Iraqi=s to rebel against the US does Aproves@ a  Alink@ between Saddam and al-Qaeda). The Los Angeles Times reported that this facility has been constantly monitored by the U.S. (it is in a no-fly zone) and wonder why, if it is a haven for terrorists, we have not attacked it?  Is it because we have no evidence that this is a terrorist training center?  To date, there has been no factual evidence linking Iraq with 9/11.

            Many critics have challenged the insistence that Iraq is a Agrave threat@ to the Middle East.  Norman Solomon (media critic and noted author) said that with the exception of Israel, Ano country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn’t=t the region feel threatened?@  The actions of the 22 foreign ministers of Arab nations noted above is further testimony to this.

Space does not permit me to fully summarize the many critiques of Powell=s speech, nor the many other arguments about invading Iraq.  Readers who have their own doubts should go on the Internet and search some alternative sources (e.g., znet.org, cato.org, ips-dc.org) and also check out a new book by Norman Soloman and Reese Erlich called ATarget Iraq: What the News Media Didn’t Tell You@ (included here is a detailed rebuttal by numerous experts to all the points made by Bush in his October 7, 2002 speech, pointing out distortions and lies).   The claim that we want to bring Ademocracy@ to Iraq and other oppressed peoples is ludicrous.  This is what crusades have always been about throughout history and they turned very ugly.

There have been some dire warnings about what could happen if we invade - more terrorist attacks, atrocities committed against the Iraqi people, increased hatred for the U.S., etc.  But the Ahawks@ are hoping for a short victory, with few casualties, the imposition of a new regime, with a Ademocratic@ facade, complete with U.S. military bases to insure the control of the oil and, of course, huge profits rolling in for the oil companies and sizeable increases in the portfolios of Bush and company.  Meanwhile, what about the other 27 nations the Pentagon claims present threats to the U.S.?  Whom should we target next?  Will it ever end?  Will we have, to quote the title of one of Gore Vidal=s latest books, Aperpetual war for perpetual peace?@ Perhaps this will be the start of establishing Acolonies@ as with the old British Empire. Is this a warning from some Aleftist@ who has been Aled astray@?  Actually, this is the assessment of former NATO commander, General Wesley Clark who stated on NBC=s AMeet the Press@ that: AWe are about to embark on an operation that=s going to put us in a colonial position in the Middle East following Britain, following the Ottomans.@