Wednesday, March 19, 2003

Mail-bag: Why This War Now? The following is a letter from a reader responding to a query from a friend as to why he is opposed to this war at this time. The questioner wanted to “turn the question of war around” and rather than state a reason for this war now, hear a reason to oppose it. The only one he could think of was the deaths of Iraqis… but don’t the sanctions kill them also?   Actually in a case like this the burden of proof lies with those who would engage in a radical departure from established behavior. I can understand why you want to shift the burden of proof - given that you are a clever debater and that you don't have an argument - but that does not rid you of the obligation for providing a positive justification for war if that is your position.   So "no, I will not let you turn the question around." I want to hear what I have yet to hear from Bush and the rest of the cronies that make up his regime - any positive justification for war.   Do you have any such justification?   I guess you don't since all you want to do is argue that there is not argument "against war" (when in reality there are very many) rather than argue why we should depart from a successful strategy of containment. Is there any doubt that Iraq is weaker today? Where is the evidence for nukes? Why can't the US, with the most sophisticated spy equipment point the UN towards any evidence of biological or chemical residue? Why if the Iraqi army is half the size it was 10 years ago, and ringed with hostile forces, bombed on a weekly basis, unable to even fly throughout most of its sovereign airspace and denied even the most basic supplies to effect repairs to its remaining, aging machines of war - why then is it necessary *right NOW* to invade?   I can only think of one reason: because Bush says so.   Well that ain't good enough.   Yes, containment is not glamorous, it requires constant attention and constant vigilance. It is hard work. It seems the Bushies are not cut out for hard work but rather flash-in-the-pan rhetoric and sizzle. They'd rather have a war and declare victory (as in Afghanistan) when any thinking person should realize that the "war" against 4th- and 5th- rate powers is the easy part - the occupation, reconstruction and "denazification" of the countries is the hard part. That is why we are losing in Afghanistan today . As for enforcing resolutions - it is plain and clear that the UN security council - not your president - is the one to decide when the resolutions have been breached and what the appropriate response is. This is not just my opinion: this is what our own representative to the UN said not less than a few months ago:   >>Here's what America's UN Representative John Negroponte said at the UN on the day the resolution passed ...    There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.   What he was saying there was that 1441 was not self-enforcing. Its language and what counted as an infraction was to be decided by the Security Council. This was the price we paid for getting for getting the unanimous vote.<<   Provide the security council an intellectually honest argument and they will respond. It's not like this hasn't been tried successfully in the past: Bush's own father succeeded. But he had an argument and a rationale. Junior doesn't have an argument and has no rationale - that he can publicly share anyway. Try and bully and illegitimately shift the burden of debate (like you just tried) and the security council will not respond.   Why do I oppose this war at this time?   Well I'll do what you don't have the balls to do. Obviously these reasons cannot be comprehensive because you (nor anyone else) has provided any positive reason to radically depart from a successful status quo.   It make our nation less secure and less safe in both the short term and long term. Great recruiting tool for bin Laden. US forces at risk. An occupation that could last decades. (how long have our troops been in Germany? Japan? Korea? Phillipines? Cuba?). You think the violence in N. Ireland or Somalia or the West Bank was bad? Wait till US troops are trying to keep order in a city of millions.   It seriously undermines a source of US strength internationally - our alliances, our influence, our "word." We will not be able to maintain the moral highground when we declare war whenever and wherever we please. It has shattered NATO unity - something the USSR could never do in 50 years. Do you think Germany and France finding common cause with Russia against the US makes us more secure?   It could destabilize Islamic nations around the world. Pakistan (remember them - the ones who were so chummy with the Taliban?) has a history of coups and they have nukes. It would not take much to destabilize them and have a pipeline of nukes spreading to bin Laden. Many other Islamic nations will take a more jaundiced view of US intentions - from Indonesia to Morocco. How will this help us in the war against al Qaeda? (hint - it won't) So in this regard the war also weakens our security by undermining the war against terror.   It exacerbates other danger spots: the ramping up of nuke research in both N. Korea and Iran is directly tied to our "pre-emptive" war in Iraq. The Russian parliament has delayed ratifying nuclear treaty because they say Bush is provoking WW III and Russia will need its nukes now that the "law of the jungle" has returned to international relations. So already merely the bellicose threat of unprovoked war has made our nation less safe.   It establishes as precedent the notion of "pre-emptive war" - unprovoked wars of conquest. Hitler would have been proud - wasn't that what lebensraum was all about? You may think that this is no big deal but it undermines the very fabric of international relations that FDR struggled to set up and that has undergirded the world order and economy in the West for the past 60 years. The US will now be viewed as just another rapacious, grasping nation - and we've provided the evidence to back such a characterization up.   The war would also have repercussions domestically - it already has. The Constitution has already been run through the shredder with the patriot act - we can expect more of the same. Citizens have already lost the right to habeas corpus guaranteed in the Constitution. No trial, no lawyer - just detention for an undetermined amount of time. Once this starts happening don't you think the terrorists have won? But the fundamentalists and plutocrats who form the pillars of support for this regime don't care because they don't care for democracy - they only care about "winning" and they'll "win dirty" if they have to.   People are saying criticism and free speech is "unpatriotic." Public discourse is being debased and perverted into "either you are with us or a terrorist." Recklessness is now considered courage. Irresponsibility is called moral clarity. Slander is now considered proof of patriotic sentiment. You have TV media-celebs saying liberals need to be taught fear by killing a few and that the NY Times should be car-bombed. Elections are more than pro-forma markings of ballots and naming winners - if that was all it was about then Stalin or Saddam would be elected leaders. What kind of election are we going to have in '04 with the kind of fear induced by jingoistic war-hysteria prohibits anyone from criticizing or pointing out inconsistencies in the current regime ?   Oh yeah, and tens of thousands of Iraqis will be killed in a matter of weeks.   And what about the moral rot introduced into our nation? What will we *tell the children* about your president - might makes right? Lies are OK if fear makes everyone pretend they are true?   The current white house resident is your guy - I'd think you'd be more upset than anyone at his betrayal of conservative principles both fiscally, morally and internationally, where he has always acted in manner designed to introduce the most havoc in a previously reasonably-ordered status quo. He has taken all the world sentiment on our behalf of 18 months ago and squandered it through his sand-box diplomacy. This guy is a disgrace. How, as a conservative, can you support the mockery made of conservative principles by this guy?   And I'm still waiting for an argument for this war at this time.   And I'm also waiting to hear if you agree with your fellow GOPers that the Pope is a "wafer-eating surrender monkey"?   (name withheld) 4:53:28 PM

Fudging the numbers That’s what the Bushies are currently doing in trying to claim  that 30 nations support our war. Actually examine what they mean by support and the claim vanishes in to (hot) thin air. Such “support” is in many cases merely allowing the US – under existing treaty obligations – to overfly the country in question. In some cases not even this is permitted by  “supporters” who nonetheless have volunteered to help rebuild Iraq (after we’ve blown it up).   Only Britain and Australia are actually contributing troops.   Hardly the ringing endorsements this regime of liars and their courtiers in the punditocracy would have you believe…   World opposition rises against coalition By William J. Kole   March 19, 2003  |  Vienna, Austria -- President Bush's "coalition of the willing" is a conflicted alliance: Its political leaders want to help disarm Saddam Hussein by force, but many of their people want no part of it.   "I'm sure Saddam is a bad guy, but you don't need an army to swat a fly," said Peter Illes, 49, a parking ticket inspector in Hungary, where three out of four people say they are against an American-led war and their government's pledge to help.   Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that by his count, 30 nations consider themselves coalition members and 15 more have quietly promised support.   However, some of the countries Powell named, such as Japan, have said they will offer only post-conflict help. Others, such as Spain and the Netherlands, have offered military support but not combat troops. And some, such as the Philippines, have not yet approved basic support such as U.S. overflights. Powell's list also included countries like anti-war Belgium, which said it was allowing use of its territory for military transports mainly to show Washington that it is important for nations to work together.   A U.S.-led force of about 300,000 troops, roughly 1,000 combat aircraft and a naval fleet is in place in the Persian Gulf region, ready to attack Iraq on Bush's orders. Britain, the United States' chief war partner, has sent 45,000 troops and its largest naval deployment since the 1982 Falklands War.   Even France, vilified by Americans for blocking a U.N. resolution authorizing force, made it onto Powell's "B" list for opening its airspace under treaty obligations and offering more help if Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons.   Despite fierce public opposition in Australia, Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday his government would commit 2,000 military personnel already on standby in the Middle East, along with 14 Hornet fighter jets, transport ships, aircraft and other firepower.   Poland said it would commit 200 troops. Turkey said Wednesday it would ask parliament to let the U.S. military use Turkish airspace in an Iraq war but would not immediately ask lawmakers to allow in American troops.   Italy has continuously expressed its solidarity, though it has no plans to send troops and surveys suggest 75 percent of Italians oppose a war. Parliament was expected to debate a government request Wednesday to authorize the use of bases and airspace.   Spain, the United States' staunchest ally after Britain, seemed unlikely to play a significant military role. The government on Tuesday ruled out sending any troops but said it would provide military personnel and equipment in a support capacity and offer warplanes to defend Turkey.   Spain's strong pro-U.S. stance has proved deeply unpopular: All opposition parties oppose a war, and recent polls show more than 80 percent of Spaniards do, too.   The Netherlands has contributed three Patriot missile batteries and 360 men to operate them and defend Turkey in case of an Iraqi counterattack. But Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Dutch troops are out of the question "given the resistance in society."   The NATO alliance -- which is deeply divided over the prospect of war -- will not play a direct military role in a strike on Iraq but has sent units to defend Turkey. Powell's roster contained some surprises.   Bulgaria, which has stood by the United States in the Security Council and offered a 150-member noncombat unit, wasn't listed among Powell's top 30. Some of the most spirited, albeit largely symbolic, offers of help have come from unlikely countries.   Tiny Albania, which is mostly Muslim and among Europe's poorest nations, has offered a small non-combat army unit of 70 soldiers. It has also made available its airspace, land routes and territorial waters.   Romania is among eight countries behind the former Iron Curtain that have lined up behind Washington -- partly out of gratitude for American support during the Cold War, and partly because they expect U.S. backing in their quests to join NATO and the European Union.   Romania has opened its airspace, contributed 278 non-combat nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination specialists, military police and mine-clearing units, and offered the use of strategic ports on the Black Sea.   "It's not about supporting an intervention, as we don't even have the means to do it. It's about meeting certain obligations as allies," said President Ion Iliescu.   11:29:29 AM

Votes? We don’t need no stinkin’ votes! Yup, that’s the “leader” of the free world – runs from vote counts if they might sully his “legitimacy” – both here and abroad.   Lyons also clears up the little mystery concerning decision to meet at the Azores (the Azores?)…  interesting reading.   Gene Lyons March 19, 2003 Fait Accompli During his recent televised press conference, President Bush was asked if he would call for a for a vote in the U.N. Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. Absolutely, he vowed. Permitting himself a faint smirk in what was otherwise so subdued a performance cynics suggested he'd been sedated, the president employed a poker metaphor. The time had come, Cowboy Dubya allowed, for everybody at the U.N. to show their cards. Well, it's not going to happen. As the world knows, Junior only favors counting the votes when he wins. What was it Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in granting the Bush campaign's motion to stop the Florida recount during the 2000 election? That to permit it could "threaten irreparable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." God forbid we should let a bunch of foreigners cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the Little King's dynastic war with Iraq. Eighteen months ago, on Sept. 12, 2001, the French newspaper Le Monde--the New York Times of Paris--led with a headline announcing "Nous Sommes Tous Americains" (We Are All Americans). Columnist Molly Ivins, who happened to be in France on 9/11, wrote that complete strangers were embracing her in the street. She got patted so much, Ivins reported, she felt like a Labrador retriever. Four months ago, the Security Council unanimously called upon Saddam Hussein to disarm or face "serious consequences." This despite bellicose speeches beforehand by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice-president Cheney mocking arms inspections--the process which in the 1990s had destroyed more of Saddam's forbidden weapons (which the U.S. sold him in 1980s) than the Gulf War. No sooner had U.N. inspectors set up shop in Baghdad, than Junior sent a mighty army to Kuwait and began periodic announcements that time was running out and he was losing patience. Hawkish TV pundits argued that hostilities needed to commence before the weather, the WEATHER, mind you, made war uncomfortable. Next they rationalized that no matter how misguided a scheme conquering Iraq had been to begin with--this is roughly Gen. Wesley Clark's position--American forces could not withdraw without a terrible loss of credibility. In schoolyard terms, Junior couldn't risk being laughed at. More recently, experts have taken to discounting a pre-emptive strike by Iraq because Saddam has no offensive capacity. Do they even listen to themselves?  Thus presented with a FAIT ACCOMPLI (pardon my French), and evidently not wishing to be mistaken for the Texas legislature or the Democratic Party, the Security Council declined to play its assigned role in the charade. So last week we saw the ludicrous spectacle of the President of the United States flying to the Azores to meet join British, Spanish and Portuguese leaders for a photo op dramatizing their resolve. And why the Azores, remote islands 900 miles off Portugal? Because no European leader wishes to appear on TV entering the servants door at the White House, while Bush's presence in London or Madrid would have sparked massive anti-war demonstrations on a scale never witnessed. Meanwhile, fools busy pouring Bordeaux wine into gutters and re-naming French fries--will "Freedom ticklers" be next?--had best start boycotting Canadian bacon and picketing Taco Bells, because Bush couldn't persuade even our closest neighbors. Polls show that majorities in Ireland, for godsake, consider Junior a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. They are not anti-American. They are anti-Bush. Sublime in his arrogance, Monday night Bush repeated the Big Lie that's seemingly persuaded 45 percent of Americans that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the 9/11 terror attacks. Even so, scant majorities support "preventive war" against a nation that has never attacked the United States--a "Pearl Harbor" strategy for which, as Michael Lind of the New America Foundation provocatively points out, "Japanese war criminals were hanged by the U.S. after World War II." And so it begins, the great utopian game of "Risk" propounded by "neo-conser-vative" zealots who envision nothing short of global domination. The outcome of the war against Iraq is not in doubt. In the short term, Americans can be counted upon to rally behind the troops. Few have grasped that the blueprint calls for subduing Iran next, then Syria. Already, many democratic Allies have refused their imagined roles, as have the truly dangerous North Koreans. The wisdom of alienating Russia and China escapes non-utopian conservatives, as does licensing "preventive war." Already, strategists argue that occupying Iraq will require a massive military buildup. In the longer term, the utopianists may have misjudged the American people as well. Mostly, Americans wish to be left alone; they have no heart for endless wars of empire. But will they awaken in time? And will the votes be counted?   11:20:37 AM