Wednesday, August 07, 2002

Why Make War on Iraq Nick Denton writes: But there's a much more basic reason to crush Saddam Hussein's regime. The Islamic world -- mainly the Arab Islamic world -- needs to realize that it has failed. Medieval Islam cannot compete with liberal capitalism either economically or culturally. Unfortunately, that message has taken several hundred years to filter through. There is nothing like cataclysmic military defeat to teach the lesson more rapidly. One could point at the examples of Japan and Germany after the Second World War. But the Muslim world provides its own case study. Ottoman Turkey only began to pay attention to Western science and organization after its first serious military defeats at the hands of Austria and Russia in the 17th and 18th centuries. The US needs to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime because he's a bad man, sure, because he may conceivably be connected with Al-Qaeda, because he's developing weapons of mass destruction, because a friendly Iraq would alter the balance of power in the Middle East, sure, because of all of that. But the US needs to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime mainly because the West needs to humiliate the Arab world, and dispel the Islamic millennial fantasy. Inhabitants of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries must realize that medieval Islam and strongman dictatorships are bankrupt. Arab political systems have held back progress, and even the Islamic traditionalists who deny those Western notions of progress will have to accept the objective measure of military accomplishment. Let the US send 40,000 soldiers against an Iraqi army ten times the size; let the defeat be total; and let Arab people realize that liberal democracy isn't just a soft western indulgence, but the most effective form of social organization on this planet, and it is their future, if they want a future. (08/07/02) Sixty Days to WAR! TRUTHOUT -- William Rivers Pitt reports: Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq and twelve-year Marine Corps veteran, at the lectern, "I need to say right out front," he said minutes into his speech, "I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one."  Yet this was a lie - Scott Ritter had come to Boston with a political agenda, one that impacts every single American citizen. Ritter was in the room that night to denounce, with roaring voice and burning eyes, the coming American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just over the horizon.  "The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October," he said. "The Air Force used the vast majority of its precision-guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate their production of the GPS satellite kits, that go on bombs that allow them to hit targets while the planes fly away, by September 30, 2002. Why? Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October."  "As a guy who was part of the first Gulf War," said Ritter, who indeed served under Schwarzkopf in that conflict, "when you deploy that much military power forward - disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money - it is very difficult to pull them back without using them."  "You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you better expect war in October." ... "This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."  ... "The clock is ticking," he said, "and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this - Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."  (08/07/02) Killing 200,000 with one shot! Happy Hiroshima Day Yesterday was Hiroshima Day. In Japan, this is a memorial holliday to remember those humans killed by the atomic bomb dropped on August 6, 1945. It is believed that more than 140,000 people died before the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in the factories within the city. The total number of people who would eventually die due to that single bomb blast is estimated at 200,000.  The atomic bomb, nick named "Little Boy" was dropped from the Enola Gay, one of the B-29 bombers that flew over Hiroshima on that day. ... The linked Studs Terkel interview is with Paul Tibbets, the pilot who actually flew the Enola Gay and dropped the bomb. Terkel: Do you have any idea what happened down below?  Tibbets: Pandemonium! I think it's best stated by one of the historians, who said: "In one micro-second, the city of Hiroshima didn't exist." ... Terkel: One big question. Since September 11, what are your thoughts?  Tibbets: I don't know any more about these terrorists than you do, I know nothing. ... We've got to get into a position where we can kill the bastards. None of this business of taking them to court, the hell with that. I wouldn't waste five seconds on them. ... Terkel: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?  Tibbets: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.  (08/07/02) Is Bush Qualified as Commander in Chief? Joshua Marshall writes: Assume that you believe, as I do, that deposing Saddam Hussein by force is in America's national interest. ... Is it possible that regime change by force is the right thing to do, but that this administration is inclined to do it in such a reckless, ill-conceived and possibly disastrous manner that, under these circumstances, it is better not to do it at all? ... My chief worry is how they would handle the aftermath, specifically the nation-building. Everyone who's thought this through believes that success will require a long-term committment of a robust and quite American peace-keeping force. ... What you're talking about is really an army of occupation and reconstruction -- more on the order of post-war Germany or Japan, than Bosnia or Kosovo. ... Unfortunately, it is very difficult to suppose that the Bush administration has the stomach for an operation of such scope or duration. ... If the administration won't deign to nation-build in Afghanistan, where it could be done with little expense in lives or treasure, how likely would it be to do so in post-war Iraq where it would be expensive by almost every measure? The question answers itself. (08/07/02) 6:32:05 AM

© TrustMark 2002 Timothy Wilken. Last update: 9/3/2002; 6:03:21 AM. This theme is based on the SoundWaves (blue) Manila theme.