Cheres Amies:

I do not think you would know this from the European press, but there really is deep division over Iraq here. Talking with friends and family members from around the country, none of us know more than a few people who do not fiercely oppose this administration and everything it is doing. My guess is that approximately 1/3 of the population of the U.S. are completely opposed to an attack on Iraq (and just about everything else this Administration is doing), 1/3 believe the Bush Administration's contention that Iraq poses such a grave danger that we must attack, and 1/3 are very confused --inclined, in the current context, to give the President the benefit of the doubt, but uneasy about what he is doing.

This is about far more than "just" Iraq.

The Bush administration is a unique blend of the rich, Corporate Right and the "America First" Christian Right. Except for Powell, Bush has drawn the ENTIRE Administration from these two worlds. This is not surprising. The Corporate Right is the world GW lived in. The Christian Right was his personal and political salvation.

From the beginning this Administration has embraced a jingoistic, unilateralist Christian-Capitalist-Cowboy view of the world. In its first nine months, it renounced one international treaty after another.

This arrogant approach to the rest of the world has gone hand-in-glove with a complete disregard for the environment, for basic economics, and for the civil rights on which this country was founded.

The post 9-11 jingoism fanned by the Administration has given them a free hand. It has been un-patriotic to raise even the most obvious questions, and very few people in any position of power have had the courage to do so. Part of this is the natural phenomenon of a country rallying together in time of perceived threat. But it certainly has been cynically fanned and manipulated by Carl Rove (the President's chief political strategist) and others in the Administration.

As a consequence we have had a year and a half in which the natural tendencies of this Administration have gone almost completely un-checked. In the process, this Administration has:

1. Trashed over 300 years of international progress on building a code of acceptable behavior for relations between nations by proclaiming a pre-emptive right to attack whomever we perceive might possibly pose some sort of threat to our interests.

2. Turned this country into a dangerous, egocentric bully whom everyone fears and (increasingly) hates. This will have huge consequences in years ahead.

3. Done more than I would have thought possible to destabilize the world, tear down international institutions, permanently damage vital relations with other countries (including, for example, Russia and France), and increase the risk of international terror and revolution.

4. Dramatically increased the danger in the most dangerous world trouble-spot (the Palestinian-Israeli conflict).

5. Put itself in the position where it now HAS to invade Iraq (and bear the consequences of decades of messy aftermath which this will bring).

6. Inadvertently encouraged North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons and missile programs, and dramatically increased the chance that Pakistan (already a nuclear nation) will fall into extremist hands.

7. Orchestrated the biggest assault on civil liberties in the history of this country.

8. Completely turned the economy around (in the wrong direction). Yes, the Dot.com stock market bubble had to be corrected, but it took real mismanagement to produce the situation we are now facing. If Bush gets his way, we will have permanent budget deficits for as far into the future as we can see, stagnant growth and a real prospect for 1970's style "stagflation."

9. Moved even further backwards on global warming (surely an issue of some import) and energy conservation (which has more than a passing relationship to both global warming and our dependence on Middle East oil).

Bush could not have executed Bin Laden's script more perfectly.

As Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War" makes very clear, the desire to attack Iraq for the purpose of removing its government was part of this Administration from the beginning. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz started preparing for this from the very first month.

Iraq's chemical and biological weapons are a serious concern. It was clear that Hussein was going to exceptional lengths to develop and conceal some pretty awful weapons. Rumsfeld et. al. believed that sooner or later these weapons would be used by someone against someone else, and they believed that the UN had demonstrated that it lacked the will to control the problem -- largely because France and Russia had too much stake in preserving the status quo in Iraq. The only solution, they felt, was for the U.S. itself to remove Hussein from power -- a solution that had the added attractions of:

- Changing the entire balance of power in the mid-east by creating a new American client state there.

- Reducing our dependence on OPEC.

- And reducing the risk we face when things start to go bad in Saudi Arabia.

In essence, what they proposed was the ultimate cowboy solution: just ride in and take over -- something they believed (and still believe) that we can do easily.

However, this desire for a new war against Iraq would never have gone anywhere had it not been for the "war fever" created (and orchestrated) post 9-11. Not only did this atmosphere make a war against Iraq possible -- as Carl Rove famously pointed out last summer, it actually made talk of such a war politically desirable. (Rove's contention was that the specter of a confrontation with Iraq would help Bush gain a majority in both houses in the November election. Voters rally to support the President in times of external threat.)

But the crucial factor here is Bush's personal make-up. This is a very simplistic, very impatient man who makes decisions based on instinct and "gut" feel. And, from all accounts he clearly wants to over-compensate for his father's famous lack of "vision". GW wants to take the Bold Steps, do things, which will Change the World and earn him a Place in History. Thus, he wants his huge tax cuts, regardless of the economic consequences, because they will change the shape and role of the U.S. Federal Government. (Less income means Congress will not be tempted to spend it on all kinds of programs.)

Containing Saddam Hussein's weapons programs is not Bold. Removing Hussein from power is Bold. Changing the power map of the Middle East is really Bold. That changes history.

The problem is that all of this is transparently clear to the rest of the world. Bush has talked about "regime change" in Iraq from the beginning. Everyone knows that the "weapons of mass destruction" are a pretext. It did not matter how well the inspectors did their job, we were going to invade.

Of course, now Bush has a spot of bother. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq without going to the U.N. Powell won the battle within the Administration to try to rally the support of the Security Council. He succeeded in getting agreement on a disarmament resolution. But Saddam has (as Cheney et. al. knew he would) given in just enough to defuse the immediate pretext for war.

However, Bush cannot wait. He has 250,000 troops poised to go. The economy is in free-fall, waiting for something to happen. He cannot delay more than a couple of weeks at most. He has to move now -- which means that everyone will see the weapons inspection dance for what it was: a game, a pretext for what Bush intended to do anyway.

I alternate between being resigned to what I cannot change and being furious at the gross stupidity of the whole thing!

I have always consoled myself that people (and, thus situations) are never as bad (or as good) as they appear. There is a reasonable chance that Rumsfeld could be right: Iraqi officers, soldiers and civilians will reject the attempt to label this war as the second coming of the Mongols, and decide that the best they can do is to get it over with as quickly and painlessly as possible. But, everyone knows that there is a high risk that it will not be this simple. It could get very nasty indeed.

And, even if the war goes amazingly well, the immediate aftermath will not be so easy. In fact, my guess is that the need to stay in Iraq for many years has always been a major reason why Rumsfeld and company wanted to do this in the first place. The U.S. will, of course, need to keep large military bases in the country. This would allow us to exert military control over the region without need to rely on the bases in Saudi Arabia.

After we have put the fires out and repaired the oil fields, we will also, naturally, need to control Iraqi oil production. So, we might end up with cheaper oil and a very much weakened OPEC. Cheaper oil would be a Good Thing for our economy (most likely what Bush is counting on to bail him out on this score), but a Bad Thing for the environment.

Would any of this undo all of the damage I cited at the outset? Well, cheap oil would certainly help the economy. But beyond this, a successful American domination of Iraq will only aggravate the international situation. We will be seen as an even bigger and even more dangerous Bible-toting Cowboy Bully, swaggering over the rest of the world. Would you want to be an American trying to do business, trying to get cooperation on common problems, or even just trying to live amicably with your world neighbors in this environment? And, could anyone think that this is not going to feed radical Islamic hatred of the U.S. and, hence, the danger of terrorism?

Even worse, what I have outlined is the best outcome! What if we get the more likely outcome (a quagmire for years to come)? Answer: not only is the U.S. hated and feared, we are also being dragged down by a mess, which everyone knows we ourselves created.

What the Hell do these guys think they are doing?

I do not think that the divide which Bush has created in the nation and in the world will heal as long as he (Bush) is in power -- and maybe not until long after he is gone. We are confirming to the world all of their worst fears about the U.S. How do we ever put that back in the bottle?

Jonathan Seybold

Feel free to forward this to whomever you wish.