Friday, March 21, 2003
This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy.
This war is not a pre-emptive war.
This war is not about weapons of mass destruction.
This war is not about terrorism.
This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.
Diplomacy: Nations typically engage in diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, numerous attempts at diplomacy were made by France, the Soviet Union, and the Arab League. They all foundered, primarily on the intransigence of the first Bush administration. In this case, the second Bush administration tried to use "diplomacy" to create a war out of whole cloth, making no attempt to negotiate with Iraq. In fact, as Iraq made concession after concession -- as it became increasingly clear that whatever pitiful arsenal Iraq had could be found and dismantled if inspections were allowed to continue -- U.S. attempts to strong-arm other countries into supporting the war became increasingly crude and coercive. Although those attempts mostly failed, they were hardly aimed at preventing the war.
Pre-emption: In order to pre-empt a threat with war, there must be some credible reason to believe that the threat exists and that no other strategies will address it. A threat involves capability and intent. In this case, the Bush administration was not able to show that Iraq has the capability, and no attempt was made to show that it had the intent to attack.
Weapons of Mass Destruction: As time passed, the administration's lies, half-truths, and distortions became increasingly ridiculous. From scare stories about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" that turned out to be a glider held together with spit and baling wire, to forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, nothing has held water. Claims of mobile biological laboratories were refuted by weapons inspectors, as were claims that Iraq had or was about to get nuclear weapons. And, of course, ongoing inspections would have ensured that no arsenal could be built.
Terrorism: This claim is even more absurd. The best the Bush administration could come up with was a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a member of Ansar al-Islam whose ties to either al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are completely unsubstantiated. A recent British intelligence assessment concluded that there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Liberation: The United States does not care about true democracy for Iraq. In 1991, when a popular uprising after the Gulf War threatened to oust Hussein's government, the United States intervened to keep Hussein in power. The reason, as officials explained later, was that the United States wanted a military coup to preserve what Richard Haas of the National Security Council called "Saddam's regime without Saddam." Since 9/11, the Bush administration has funded a coup attempt in Venezuela, installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan, and cracked down on basic democratic protections in the United States. It would be ironic if the administration wanted democracy for Iraqis but not for Americans. U.S. plans for Iraq clearly involve establishing yet another puppet regime
So, what is this war? It is an act of premeditated aggression. It is part of an attempt to put the tremendous energy reserves of the Middle East more tightly under American control. It is the key stage in the building of a new empire. It is part of a long-term attempt to establish more clearly than ever the rule of force in international affairs and sweep away any role for international law or institutions beyond those in service to the empire.
It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless.
In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.
Garofalo: "I would say, again, that it's proof positive that there is no liberal media. If we had truly liberal media, if we truly lived in a functioning democracy, that kind of knee-jerk, reactionary, pseudo-patriotic, sycophantic B.S. would not be a part of any newscast.
"Beyond that, I would say to the person that I completely understood, but that the peace movement seeks to keep your son or daughter alive and bring them home soon. I would say, if you want to get angry, you should talk to Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Perle and Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bush, who seem to me to have absolutely no respect for your son and daughter. They are extremely cavalier with your children's lives in that they've put them in Iraq, on the ground, in a war we don't have to be fighting.
It hasn’t; the level of economic deprivation, house and crop demolitions, shoot-to-kill curfews, restrictions on employment and movement, random arrests, beatings, torture, and worse inflicted by the Israelis have all essentially become background noise for most Americans. A few, however, have been intentionally putting themselves in harm’s way. ...
Repeatedly, over the last year, returning American volunteers have reported the same thing: Ordinary Palestinians and their families both thank the internationals for caring enough to come, and beg them to tell their countrymen—that’s us—what is being done in our name and with our tax money. The munitions scattered like confetti around Palestinian streets all have “made in USA” on them; likely, the bulldozer that killed Corrie was manufactured in her home country.
Had Corrie been killed by Saddam Hussein’s soldiers, of course, she’d be an instant national hero, and America would be enraged. Instead, with the war in Iraq now underway, it’s likely that the death of Rachel Corrie will be soon forgotten by most. But there are now hundreds of other Americans serving as nonviolent peacekeepers and witnesses in both Palestine and Iraq. It’s worth taking a moment to remember not only Rachel, but all of these brave activists. They’re putting their lives on the line for their beliefs, for the love of humanity, and because they feel a need to take responsibility for the actions of our elected government. We should all be so committed.
For all the whizzbang 3D maps and crawling newsblip texts and live satellite feeds and pyrotechnic skyline shots, the hyperactive screens of the cable news channels have no room for this one truth. And to me that makes the whole medium feel like a lie.
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further. ...
Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.
Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."
"Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."
Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."
The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.
"Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."
"For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."
An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.
"After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."
"You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."
Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.
"We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
"The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."
Babies, women and old people who have made the arduous journey from Baghdad are now sheltering from the fierce desert winds in tents.
Many of them have left virtually all their possessions behind. It's not much of a welcome for them on this side of the border.
Aid agencies have been unable to set in motion a full disaster response.
Their have been mixed opinion about today's advance into Iraq. People have had a reality check today.
Yes, the British and American forces have overwhelming fire power. They also have control of the skies.
But the Iraqis have not just rolled over, have not all put their hands up. Their have been areas of very stiff resistance.
The picture is pretty mixed. Anyone who thought it was going to be an easy stroll to Baghdad is having to think again.
The Iraqi gunners fired first, soon after United States President George Bush announced the attack on Saddam Hussein was under way.
It was a fatal mistake.
The Iraqi artillery unit, preparing for the American invasion, had tested the range by firing registering shots at a likely spot where the American tanks would cross from Kuwait. US radar picked up the incoming shells and pinpointed their source.
Within hours, the Iraqi gunners and their Russian-made 122mm howitzers were destroyed as the Americans unleashed an artillery barrage that shook the ground and lit up the night sky with orange flashes.
"Dead bodies are everywhere," a US officer reported by radio.
Later in the day, the American firepower was turned on Safwan Hill, an Iraqi military observation post a couple of kilometres across the border. About six hours after US marines and their 155mm howitzer guns pulled up at the border, they opened up with a deafening barrage. Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the Iraqi observation post was obliterated.
"I pity anybody who's in there," a marine sergeant said. "We told them to surrender."
The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment near the main highway that runs from Kuwait up to Basra and then Baghdad. The attacking US and British forces could not attempt to cross the border unless it was destroyed.
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald .
A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal "per se" because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. "But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons," said Dominique Loye, the committee's adviser on weapons and IHL.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.
