"She said she worked for ABC,
They were the only letters in her vocabulary"
- Elvis Costello
'Brilliant Mistake'
As we pass the through the anniversary of 9/11 and find our country poised
on the verge of war, with President Bush talking of unilateral attack
against Iraq regardless of whether the United Nations approves such an
action, it is more important than ever to have a diversity of perspective
brought to the table.
Unfortunately, this perspective is often hard to find in the 'mainstream
media', where corporations and interlocking directorates that have
financial interest in the military industrial complex often pull the
strings and hold monetary interest in the very news organizations that are
charged with delivering the truth to the American public.
Therefore, what I would like to do with this issue's editorial is present a
compendium of perspective centered on the ramifications of what unilateral
attack against Iraq could mean for the United States.
It is precisely when the 'call to arms' is most fervent that a free press
is most crucial. And as Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote: "The greatest
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious enroachment by men of zeal,
well-meaning, but without understanding."
Republicans Breaking Ranks with Bush
Leading Republicans from Congress, the State Department and past
administrations have begun to break ranks with President Bush over his
administration's high-profile planning for war with Iraq, saying the
administration has neither adequately prepared for military action nor made
the case that it is needed.
These senior Republicans include former Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft, the first President Bush's national security
adviser. All say they favor the eventual removal of Saddam Hussein, but
some say they are concerned that Mr. Bush is proceeding in a way that risks
alienating allies, creating greater instability in the Middle East, and
harming long-term American interests. They add that the administration has
not shown that Iraq poses an urgent threat to the United States.
At the same time, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his advisers, who
summoned Mr. Kissinger for a meeting, have decided that they should focus
international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein -
not only in an effort to assure a democracy, but as a way to outflank
administration hawks and slow the rush to war, which many in the department
oppose.
In an opinion article published in The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Scowcroft,
who helped build the broad international coalition against Iraq in the
Persian Gulf war, warned that "an attack on Iraq at this time would
seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign
we have undertaken."
An attack might provoke Iraq to use chemical or biological weapons in an
effort to trigger war between Israel and the Arab world, he said.
His criticism has particular meaning for Mr. Bush because Mr. Scowcroft was
virtually a member of the Bush family during the first President Bush's
term and has maintained close relations with the former president.
Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska said that Secretary Powell and
his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, had recently told President Bush of their
concerns about the risks and complexities of a military campaign against
Iraq, especially without broad international support. But senior White
House and State Department officials said they were unaware of any such
meeting.
Lawrence S. Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state for Mr. Bush's
father, told ABC News that unless Mr. Hussein "has his hand on a trigger
that is for a weapon of mass destruction, and our intelligence is clear, I
don't know why we have to do it now, when all our allies are opposed to
it."
Representative Dick Armey, the House majority leader, has raised similar
concerns.
The comments by Mr. Scowcroft and others in the Republican foreign policy
establishment appeared to be a loosely coordinated effort. Mr. Scowcroft
first spoke out publicly on the CBS News program "Face the Nation."
In an opinion article published on in The Washington Post, Mr. Kissinger
made a long and complex argument about the international complications of
any military campaign, writing that American policy "will be judged by how
the aftermath of the military operation is handled politically," a
statement that seems to play well with the State Department's strategy.
"Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to
sustain such an effort for however long it is needed," he added.
Far from ruling out military intervention, Mr. Kissinger said the challenge
was to build a careful case that the threat of proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction calls for creation of a new international security
framework in which pre-emptive action may sometimes be justified.
It's All About OilŠ
"It is hard now to see how G.W. Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and
also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly
for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world," writes Mo Mowlam,
a former member of Tony Blair's cabinet in the British newspaper The
Guardian.
"What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must
know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling
throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and
Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing
of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American
Islamist fundamentalist regimes."
"We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Americans
backed the Shah, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people. And
it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of
their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that
they must want to create such mayhem," he continues.
"The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of
mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence,
seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he
wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in
neighboring countries the full might of the western world will be raging
against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him.
Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam
knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against
America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try
and force him to irrationality."
In reading Mowlam's column, the notion struck me as to why Bush would want
to take that risk? Why is he so determined to take the risk? T
The key country in the Middle East, as far as Americans are concerned, is
Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the
country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when
prices are too high and less when there is a glut.
The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the
west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government
is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an
extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the
regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of
oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.
Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US
administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and
in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly
anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example.
Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the
United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The
possibility of the world's largest oil reserves falling into the hands of
an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely
- and this is unacceptable.<
Perhaps the Bush Administration knows they cannot stop such a revolution.
They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not
the government.
And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the
field at the time of such disruption? In the name of saving the west,
these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US
have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied
with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the U.S. armed forces
could be seen as a global savior. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the
war to secure oil supplies could be waged.
Consequently, from a European perspective, this whole affair has nothing to
do with a threat from Iraq. It has nothing to do with the war against
terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but
when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the
same evil man he is today.
As Mowlam concludes: "He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way
he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight
of hand to protect the west's supply of oil."
Think the Days of the Draft are Gone? Think Again
Finally, we would do well to consider this article written by William
Rivers Pitt for the on-line news organization truthout.
2.7 million Americans served in Vietnam. 304,000 of them were wounded in
action, and over 75,000 of those were disabled by their injuries. As of
Memorial Day 1996, there were 58,202 names listing the dead on the long,
black monument in Washington, D.C. Approximately 1,300 men are still listed
as missing in action.
There are many reasons why people today believe a return of the draft is an
absurd notion, and the names on that wall stand tall among them. The
insanity loosed within this nation when the draft was violently resisted
stands as another firebreak against a politician who would call for its
reinstatement.
Finally, most Americans believe that our armed forces are utterly
invincible and fully capable of performing any task we require beyond our
borders. We stomped the Iraqi army and then the largest mechanized military
force in the Middle East, like a roach back in 1991. After 9/11, we
rampaged through Afghanistan.
Perceptions of this nature are dangerous, for they depart in the extreme
from reality. Though we have succeeded in shattering the Taliban and
dispersing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the threat posed by the latter
terrorist organization remains quite real.
The cultural and tribal rifts in that region will require a massive
American military presence there for years. The recent car-bomb attack
against Afghan president Karzai demonstrates that, though we may have won
all the battles over there, we are far from obtaining victory.
The situation in Afghanistan will be a significant tax on our military
resources, unless we walk away as we did once the Soviets disengaged in
1989, which would guarantee once again the rise of fundamentalist chaos
there. We have reaped that whirlwind once already, and will hold this tiger
by the tail until further notice. The fact that we have significant
interest in the natural resources of that region only cements the
permanence of our presence there.
Our military presence in the Middle East is already significant, and has
begun to steadily increase since George W. Bush began to beat the war drum
against Iraq.
A great many officers ensconced in the Pentagon strongly believe our
military will become far too stretched in a repeat engagement with Saddam
Hussein's forces. Few will say openly that they fear defeat, and in fact
the odds of losing a war in Iraq are extremely low, but the pressure placed
upon our military resources will be extreme.
The potential for explosive upheaval in the Middle East should we make war
on Iraq further exacerbates this. Between Afghanistan and Iraq, the United
States military is reaching mission capacity.
Still, the idea that forced military conscription of Americans could come
again is a foolish one, right?
Consider the following scenario. Consider it with particular care if you
have loved ones of battle age.
In July of 2002, the Defense Policy Board - a powerful group at the ear of
the Bush administration which is chaired by former Reagan Defense
Department official Richard Perle - listened with great interest to a
briefing delivered by emissaries from a Rand Corporation think tank.
The thrust of the briefing was that Iraq should be considered only the
beginning of a protracted campaign to bring "regime change" throughout the
Middle East.
The final Powerpoint slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the
tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, (and) Egypt as the
prize."
Though the administration publicly distanced itself from this briefing once
it was exposed on the pages of the Washington Post, going so far as to have
Bush abase himself before visiting Saudi royalty, the substance of that
talk surely resonated within the men calling the shots in D.C.
Richard Perle is a famously hawkish neo-conservative who springs from the
same think-tank environment as those who gave the briefing. The same goes
for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz.
These three men, along with the like-minded Vice President Cheney, are
fully in control of both American foreign policy and the War on Terror. A
plan for region-wide regime change in the Middle East suits them right down
to the ground.
Noted MIT Professor Noam Chomsky, writing earlier this week in the
Guardian, described the invitation for more terrorism on American shores
should we attack Iraq.
"No one," wrote Chomsky, "including Donald Rumsfeld, can realistically
guess the possible costs and consequences. Radical Islamist extremists
surely hope that an attack on Iraq will kill many people and destroy much
of the country, providing recruits for terrorist actions."
The inference is clear: Any war in that region will spawn a new and
terrible wave of attacks against this country. Any war in that region is
exactly what the terrorists are hoping for. Fresh recruits, soaked in rage,
will flood into their open arms.
The unfolding scenario becomes all too clear. If Bush is pressed into a
conflict with Iraq by the hawkish, neo-conservative platoon of Perle,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney, America will once again suffer a
catastrophic terrorist attack.
The result will be the complete militarization of America, complete with
martial law and the suspension of all basic civil rights.
Bush administration officials have already admitted as much when asked in
the last year what the result of another attack would be. In the aftermath,
the Bush administration will assuredly push for that region-wide regime
change in the Middle East, but will be unable to do so without forced
conscriptions, because the military is currently stretched too thin.
Thus, the draft.
Farfetched? Hardly. In fact, there is presently in Congress a bill pending
that would require military conscription. H.R. 3598, entitled "Universal
Military and Training Act of 2001," was introduced into the House of
Representatives on December 20th, 2001 by Republican Rep. Nick Smith of
Michigan.
It calls for the drafting of all able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and
22 for military service.
Even those who would declare themselves conscientious objectors would be
drafted and given military training, whereupon they would be peeled off to
another Federal agency to serve out their term.
At present, H.R. 3598 languishes in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
which is attached to the House Committee on Armed Services, because it has
not enjoyed enough support in Congress.
Should the very real scenario described above unfold, and specifically if
this nation is attacked again, H.R. 3598 could well enjoy an incredible
surge in popularity.
There is a high-stakes game of poker being played within the administration
right now.
The hawks are holding aces and betting them. Around them on the card table,
the chips are piled high. Your sons, your brothers, your friends are in
that pile.
So are you, if you are of age. After September 11th, the only thing likely
to happen is that which was previously inconceivable.
Could war in Iraq bring terrorism back to our country? Could it lead to a
regional conflagration in the Middle East? Could it lead to another draft?
I wouldn't bet against it.
|
