A Few Days in February
With all of the absolutely absurd conservative "oh-ya-prove-it" talk (focusing on whether or not Bush mislead America into war with Iraq), I’ve gone back and reread some articles I saved from February 12th through the 20th.
If you recall these days, you will remember these events: Bush was ramping up the pressure in the Gulf, sending tens of thousands of soldiers weekly; the UN had rejected the First Resolution; Tom Ridge at Homeland Security had encouraged Americans to be ready for a biological or chemical counter-attack when we started dropping bombs–hardware stores immediately sold out of plastic and duct-tape; rather than a terrorist attack, the eastern seaboard was hit with one of the largest snowstorms on record; the world witnessed record-braking numbers of peace protestors marching against the war; the UN weapons inspection team headed by Hans Blix gave their final report on weapons of mass destruction (it wasn’t the smoking gun the US wanted); and the US and her Allies prepared another resolution.
If anything, the critics of this war were right then and are still right now. The conservatives have no legitimate remarks to this debate. It’s ours, we own it, and we were mislead and forced into this war.
Here are some noteworthy excerpts from that stressful season:
War is coming very soon, possibly as soon as the next moonless nights over Iraq at the beginning of March.
As best one can tell, the war plans are now smart, meticulous and comprehensive - with one exception that is blindingly irresponsible. It's the loose talk in the Bush administration about using nuclear weapons in Iraq.
...One sign of the administration's interest in tactical nukes came last September when Mr. Bush signed Presidential Directive 17, whose classified version has leaked and specifically mentions using "potentially nuclear weapons" in response to chemical or biological attacks. And Republicans have tried to pass a law allowing the development of small nuclear weapons.
..."The way they are handling it is very counterproductive," said Spurgeon Keeny, a nuclear expert who held senior posts in both Republican and Democratic administrations. "It harms our efforts to discourage proliferation of nuclear weapons."
(From Flirting With Disaster by Nicholas Kristoff, The New York Times, Feb. 14, 2003)
**********
However, the polls are clear: 78 percent of French people oppose a military intervention in Iraq. Polls are similar in most other countries, including in Eastern Europe. European governments may be divided over the use of force in Iraq, but public opinion is united.
There are, in my view, three reasons the mood is so cautious. The first relates to our assessment of what is far and away the biggest threat to world peace and stability: Al Qaeda.
...Yet we haven't seen any evidence of a direct link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda.
...A second reason for the reluctance of the French people is that Iraq is not viewed as an immediate threat.
...A third reason for the cautious mood relates to the consequences of a war in Iraq. We see Iraq as a very complex country, with many different ethnic groups, a tradition of violence and no experience of democracy. You can't create democracy with bombs - in Iraq, it would require time, a strong presence and a strong committment.
We also worry about the region - considering that no peace process is at work for the moment in the Middle East, that none of the great powers seem able to foster one, and that a war in Iraq could result in more frustration and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
...The inspections should be pursued and strengthened, and Saddam Hussein must be made to cooperate actively. War must remain the very last option.
(From " A Warning on Iraq, From a Friend" by Jean-David Levitte, The New York Times, 14 Feb 2003. Levitte is French ambassador to the United States.)
**********
The "collateral damage" of Bush's war drive is mounting daily - the cohesion of Nato, the chimera of a common EU foreign policy (and Blair's fantasy of being at the heart of Europe) and the post-1945 structure of international law included. All of this seems merely to be whipping the US political class into a still greater frenzy of bellicosity. How long before France is officially designated a "rogue state" and Gerhard Schröder becomes a card-carrying member of the "axis of evil"?
It now must be clear to everyone that the US is hell-bent on war at any price , scattering to the winds any and every sensible proposal for a peaceful resolution to the crisis in its rush to get the shooting started. A fatal game of catch-22 is being played with the Saddam regime, in which every discovery of an unauthorised weapon is hailed not as evidence that UN inspections are working but as proof of Iraqi duplicity, while every failure to find such weapons is evidence that they are being concealed. But who can still believe that this has anything to do with weapons of mass destruction, any more than it has to do with terrorism? It has become an exercise in US military-political machismo.
(From "A Mandate to Go To War," by Andrew Murray, The Guardian, 14 Feb. 2003)
**********
During a week when the Bush administration would have liked nothing more than to continue its laserlike focus on the threat posed by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, the war on terror grabbed center stage in a series of chilling revelations.
....New intelligence pointed to impending attacks on the United States just as it is gearing up for possible war against Iraq. Concern was only heightened when FBI (news - web sites) Director Robert Mueller told a Senate committee that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaeda terrorist network remains the gravest danger to the U.S. and could attack American targets as early as this weekend.
....Thus, after months of trying to persuade the public that Saddam is linked to terrorism, the Bush administration was handed a clear connection. But instead of bolstering its argument that swift military action to disarm Saddam will reduce terrorist threats, the link raised a more frightening specter that the administration has yet to address: War with Iraq could place Americans at greater risk of retaliation by terrorists.
....The threats haven't been adequately addressed by an administration more interested in arguing the links between terrorism and Iraq than discussing how the connection complicates the war against terror.
....The Bush administration says that ousting Saddam is central to fighting terrorism because al-Qaeda cells operating in Iraq have received training in producing chemical weapons and could have access to Saddam's arsenal.
(From "Singular focus on Saddam poses risks in war on terror," USATODAY, 14 February 2003)
**********
Even leaders who would be happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein are put off by the Bush team's locker room taunts, counter-terrorism doctrine to "compel" other nations to get in line and bullying bromides.
President Bush, going to the martial setting of a Florida naval station, challenged the U.N. to show "backbone and courage," to stand up to Iraq or be seen as "an ineffective, irrelevant debating society." The subtext was not subtle: Are you important or impotent?
Rummy has painted the French and Germans as old biddies and East Europe as the virile new stud on the Continent.
Even some hawks think the administration's rhetoric is gratuitously gladiatorial. Radek Sikorski of the American Enterprise Institute said on the Diane Rehm radio show, "there is sometimes a little bit too much testosterone in the air in these trans-Atlantic exchanges . . . and sometimes in these matters flirtation and compliments do more good - achieve aims - than, shall we say, a more direct approach."
The real reason the Bush team has leapfrogged Iraq over more urgent priorities is that conservatives won't be happy until they erase what they see as the emasculating legacy of leaving Saddam in power, back when we were tied up with our coalition of nervous Nellie allies.
Henry Kissinger summed up the logic of conservatives: "If the United States marches 200,000 troops into the region and then marches them back out . . . the credibility of American power . . . will be gravely, perhaps irreparably impaired."
The painful parts of Washington history have often been about men trying harder to save face than lives.
With or without the fussy Frenchies, we're going to war. For this White House, pulling back when all our forces are poised for battle would be, to use the Bush family's least favorite word, wimpy.
(From "The Venus Trap," by Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, 18 February 2003.)
**********
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
.... In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, international order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned peacekeeper. This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth.
....In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.
One can understand the anger and shock of any president after the savage attacks of 9/11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.
But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.
We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.
(From Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia) speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate on Feb. 12, 2003.)
**********
Attacking Iraq offers the US three additional means of offloading capital while maintaining its global dominance. The first is the creation of new geographical space for economic expansion. The second (though this is not a point Harvey makes) is military spending (a process some people call "military Keynesianism"). The third is the ability to control the economies of other nations by controlling the supply of oil. This, as global oil reserves diminish, will become an ever more powerful lever. Happily, just as legitimation is required, scores of former democrats in both the US and Britain have suddenly decided that empire isn't such a dirty word after all, and that the barbarian hordes of other nations really could do with some civilisation at the hands of a benign superpower.
Strategic thinkers in the US have been planning this next stage of expansion for years. Paul Wolfowitz, now deputy secretary for defence, was writing about the need to invade Iraq in the mid-1990s. The impending war will not be fought over terrorism, anthrax, VX gas, Saddam Hussein, democracy or the treatment of the Iraqi people. It is, like almost all such enterprises, about the control of territory, resources and other nations' economies. Those who are planning it have recognised that their future dominance can be sustained by means of a simple economic formula: blood is a renewable resource; oil is not.
(From "Too much of a good thing" by George Monbiot, The Guardian 18 February 2003)
**********
I have a terrible foreboding that when we look back on our debate over the impending war with Iraq, we will be disappointed in ourselves. We may end up starting a war without any real argument over what it will take to win the peace.
....We doubters cannot identify with those who see American power as a force for evil in the world, and we believe President Bush was right to increase pressure on Saddam Hussein to disarm. Many of us agree with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement over the weekend that, given the nature of the Iraqi regime, "ridding the world of Saddam would be an act of humanity."
But doubters do not share the confidence of so many of the war's supporters that victory will revolutionize the politics of the Middle East. We worry about the unintended consequences of military action and can't quite shake the hope that the very military buildup Bush has carried out creates opportunities to disarm and perhaps even unseat Hussein through means short of war.
My own doubts are rooted in the Bush administration's failure to prepare our country for the long commitment that will be required if this war is to achieve the results its supporters promise. We still don't know how the administration intends to handle the aftermath of what one hopes would be an American military victory. And it is not as obvious to me as it is to the war's supporters that this battle is the clear next step in our response to 9/11. It's hard to escape the feeling that those who always wanted to "finish" the last Gulf war by getting rid of Hussein are using the events of Sept. 11, 2001, as a rationale for doing what they wanted to do on Sept. 10.
Some of my doubts are, purely and simply, doubts about this administration. I find it astonishing that Bush and his lieutenants are not willing to offer a sober calculation of the long-term costs of this war, factor those costs into the nation's budget and ask Americans to pay the price. Instead, they would shuck off the costs to the next generation.
Their failure to count the costs can only make you wonder about how committed they are to what will be an arduous struggle to pacify and democratize Iraq.
(From "Listen To the Doubters," by E. J. Dionne Jr. Page A25, The Washington Post Company, 18 February 2003)
**********
It would be so much easier if the Bush administration just dropped the confusing pretension of an earnest campaign for truth, international cooperation and the rule of law. The reality is and has been that the United States is determined to invade Iraq whether or not it has weapons of mass destruction and no matter the findings of the weapons inspectors or the judgment of the Security Council.
The troops are in place, the special ops expeditions and bombing runs have intensified, and Secretary of State Colin Powell is now a full-time hawk blasting away at and cynically distorting the inspectors' reports before they can finish reading them to the United Nations.
....The essential wisdom and appeal of this nation were captured eloquently in George Washington's warning about the dangers of illogical foreign entanglements. "The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest," Washington wrote in 1796. "The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy."
....By acting like a man trying to fight his way out of a bar, Bush has squandered his post-Sept. 11 credibility -- his approval rating dropped 10 points in the last month alone -- and has backed the United States into a corner, strategically. Not surprising, then, that less than half of us believe he has a coherent plan to fight terrorism and only a third think we are winning that fight. Nevertheless, apparently believing that questionable ends justify questionable means, our leaders now daily produce claims of Hussein's perfidy with a wanton contempt for the public's ability to sort fact from fiction.
This past week, for example, Powell seized on the fact that Iraqi missiles might be able to fly a couple dozen more miles than are allowed under U.N. terms. The problem is, the specs on these missiles were there in the 1,200-page report released by Iraq two months ago, which was dismissed by Bush as containing nothing new or relevant. Pity poor Hans Blix. On Friday, the U.N. chief weapons inspector again emerged with a balanced, noninflammatory report that was immediately politicized beyond recognition by the White House spin doctors.
In fact, from the beginning of the administration's mockery of fact and logic, our damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't stance toward Iraq has been consistent: If they come forth with weapons we blast them for having them, and if they don't reveal enough we blast them for holding back.
....Amazingly, the Bush administration seems most alarmed at the prospect that if inspectors were allowed to do their job, they might find that Iraq doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, all of this is, as George Washington put it, "contrary to the best calculations of policy."
....Worst of all, we're giving al-Qaida exactly what it wants: the overthrow of Hussein's government, what Osama bin Laden called in his latest tape an "infidel regime" run by apostates, and the best recruiting poster he could hope for. Imagine it: a photo of a U.S. general, likely a Christian, who the Bush administration now says will run mostly Muslim Iraq for at least two years. In Arabic, the words are in big, red letters: "Oust the crusaders." (From "Stop the Charade," by Robert Scheer, Salon, 19 Feb 2003)
8:37:46 PM  | |
|
|
