Drudge Jr.
10-07-2002, 05:05 PM
Why Iraq? Why now?
What's going on? Why is it that when there is no evidence suggesting Iraq has ties to 9/11, never attacked the United States, and hasn't done a thing to warrant an attack in the past 10 years, are we planning the invade? There seems to be only a few hazy answers to this question, and as the Bush administration bangs the drums of war with thousands of apathetic Americans supporting every one of his moves, it seems like peace drifts farther and farther from our shores. But still, wouldn't it be nice to know why?
Our president assures us that there is no greater threat to the security of this nation and others than Saddam Hussein. Bush tells us daily Hussein's trying to get weapons of mass destruction, and he tells us his army is capable of causing mass havoc in the region. However, much of this contradicts what we have learned since the Gulf War. Many of our top generals claim Saddam's army is disloyal. Former weapons inspector John Ritter claims the last time we attacked Iraq in 1998, 90-95% of Saddam's weapons were destroyed. Reports that Saddam Hussein acquired the parts for a nuclear bomb in the 90's was false, now there is no evidence Saddam has nukes or a nuke. We do know however Hussein has the capability to fire Scud missiles at Israel, but when's a better time to use his scud missiles then when he backed into a corner (a position he will be in if the US attacks) and his regime is on the verge of collapse? Calling Saddam a threat now is very precarious, and probably shows there are other motives in a plan to invade Iraq.
Maybe it's not surprising, but Bush isn't really getting the support he expected either. When he announced his intentions, expecting a Gulf-War style coalition, initially only one European nation, Liechtenstein signed on (now France and Russia have shifted). Not exactly what you'd call universal support, but still Bush pressed on, even with all but one European nation dissenting a war. He effectively utilized the UN as a tool to increase support for war by demanding a resolution supporting an attack on Iraq if inspectors would not be allowed in to search for weapons, which the UN is still very reluctant to do. And even with any future support of Europe and the UN, the movement of war resistance, which we all thought was extinct just a year ago, is back, even if with less rights thanks to John Ashcroft. Protests are collecting in almost every major city across the country, all with the message that an attack on Iraq would be both unwise and unpopular.
So we've got most of Europe, the UN, and a rapidly growing number of Americans dying to contradict the previously infallible Bush administration, but at least toppling Saddam is good if successful anyway, right? Well, I was quick to think that too, but it may not be that obvious. Sure, in the process of whatever scheme the Bush administration has here we might liberate Iraq, but won't we really be occupying it as well? We certainly won't make it a democracy, with a vast majority of citizens against the United States (perhaps because the US and Britain has been bombing them for over a decade). A shadow US government will never be welcome in Baghdad, and this sort of political imposition will most likely lead to further fanaticism in the region, certainly not a good idea. Furthermore, the mass invasion Bush has dreamed of would further riddle an already quickly sinking global economy.
Ok, I agree that toppling Saddam isn't 100% bad news, Saddam is an oppressive Machiavellian despot who is destroying his country, but if Bush wanted to take out every evil dictator in the world, we might be at war for far longer than the month planned for Iraq. Not to mention (well, I guess I am now), that a lot of the poverty in Iraq is directly do to US sanctions, which generally hurt Iraqi citizens as opposed to Saddam's regime. Clearly, the ends do not justify the means in this case.
There's a clich‚ that's beginning to hit certain war resisting circles, and that is "Truth is the first casualty of war." We are being told things that
What's going on? Why is it that when there is no evidence suggesting Iraq has ties to 9/11, never attacked the United States, and hasn't done a thing to warrant an attack in the past 10 years, are we planning the invade? There seems to be only a few hazy answers to this question, and as the Bush administration bangs the drums of war with thousands of apathetic Americans supporting every one of his moves, it seems like peace drifts farther and farther from our shores. But still, wouldn't it be nice to know why?
Our president assures us that there is no greater threat to the security of this nation and others than Saddam Hussein. Bush tells us daily Hussein's trying to get weapons of mass destruction, and he tells us his army is capable of causing mass havoc in the region. However, much of this contradicts what we have learned since the Gulf War. Many of our top generals claim Saddam's army is disloyal. Former weapons inspector John Ritter claims the last time we attacked Iraq in 1998, 90-95% of Saddam's weapons were destroyed. Reports that Saddam Hussein acquired the parts for a nuclear bomb in the 90's was false, now there is no evidence Saddam has nukes or a nuke. We do know however Hussein has the capability to fire Scud missiles at Israel, but when's a better time to use his scud missiles then when he backed into a corner (a position he will be in if the US attacks) and his regime is on the verge of collapse? Calling Saddam a threat now is very precarious, and probably shows there are other motives in a plan to invade Iraq.
Maybe it's not surprising, but Bush isn't really getting the support he expected either. When he announced his intentions, expecting a Gulf-War style coalition, initially only one European nation, Liechtenstein signed on (now France and Russia have shifted). Not exactly what you'd call universal support, but still Bush pressed on, even with all but one European nation dissenting a war. He effectively utilized the UN as a tool to increase support for war by demanding a resolution supporting an attack on Iraq if inspectors would not be allowed in to search for weapons, which the UN is still very reluctant to do. And even with any future support of Europe and the UN, the movement of war resistance, which we all thought was extinct just a year ago, is back, even if with less rights thanks to John Ashcroft. Protests are collecting in almost every major city across the country, all with the message that an attack on Iraq would be both unwise and unpopular.
So we've got most of Europe, the UN, and a rapidly growing number of Americans dying to contradict the previously infallible Bush administration, but at least toppling Saddam is good if successful anyway, right? Well, I was quick to think that too, but it may not be that obvious. Sure, in the process of whatever scheme the Bush administration has here we might liberate Iraq, but won't we really be occupying it as well? We certainly won't make it a democracy, with a vast majority of citizens against the United States (perhaps because the US and Britain has been bombing them for over a decade). A shadow US government will never be welcome in Baghdad, and this sort of political imposition will most likely lead to further fanaticism in the region, certainly not a good idea. Furthermore, the mass invasion Bush has dreamed of would further riddle an already quickly sinking global economy.
Ok, I agree that toppling Saddam isn't 100% bad news, Saddam is an oppressive Machiavellian despot who is destroying his country, but if Bush wanted to take out every evil dictator in the world, we might be at war for far longer than the month planned for Iraq. Not to mention (well, I guess I am now), that a lot of the poverty in Iraq is directly do to US sanctions, which generally hurt Iraqi citizens as opposed to Saddam's regime. Clearly, the ends do not justify the means in this case.
There's a clich‚ that's beginning to hit certain war resisting circles, and that is "Truth is the first casualty of war." We are being told things that