Viet Nam should have taught all of us to heed valuable lessons we should have learned from that fiasco and which make a war with Iraq, at the very least, unwise. Lessons such as the need for wide and strong domestic support for wars, the limits of US political, diplomatic and military power and finally, that wars do not adhere to plans and their outcomes and consequences can be very unpredictable. The horror that was Viet Nam evolved via a chain of political, diplomatic and military miscalculations- a slippery slope. Bush and his puppeteers and fellow warmongers and chicken hawks are not taking the US down a slippery slope- they are literally forcing the entire nation to jump off a precipice.
Sadam may have weapons of mass destruction and, if given free reign and the right provication, would likely use them again. That said, he is not an imminent threat to us. Well, Sadam wasn't an imminent threat until Bush and crew targeted him with bellicose and arrogant rhetoric and, as of now, 250,000 troops posed for an attack.
Bush has not produced any evidence that Sadam has supported the folks who are a very imminent and severe threat- Al Queda. Bush's targeting of Sadam has very likely encouraged him to form an alliance with Al Queda- maybe even by furnishing their terrorists with weapons of mass destruction for another 9/11 type attack.
Bush's and the nation's preoccupation with Iraq has diverted attention from fighting the imminent threat which does justify a preemptive "war"- Bin Laden and crew. Al Queda and Taliban terrorists are still launching attacks in Afghanistan- including attacks on USA troops there.
Bush's stated policy of starting unilateral and preemptive war on any nation he considers a threat (see bottom left of page 6 of the NSS) has caused many, many more citizens of the world to correctly consider the US to be the world's most arrogant and increasingly dangerous bully. Together with Bush's blind support of another bully (Israel), many more terrorist recruits are assured.
Bush only very reluctantly and belatedly sought UN approval, but it was and still remains mere window dressing since he continues to insist that he and "the willing" will preemptively attack Iraq without UN approval.
There are only two other national leaders who Bush's allies/"the willing"- Spain and the UK. Of them, only UK providing combat troops, so the real "willing" are down to the UK's Tony Blair. Of late, even he is wavering due to most UK citizens refusing to support a war without at least a new UN resolution and the recent open revolt by many members of his own Labor party.
To start a war without an imminent and severe threat violates international law, common sense and, to me, is immoral. On pragmatic and "enlightened self-interest" bases, the policy and its first implementation in Iraq encourages other nations and terrorists to do adopt and implement their own, respectively, preemptive war and terroristic policies.
If Bush invades Iraq without producing proof of an imminent and severe threat from Iraq and without a new UN resolution authorizing an invasion, the US will be in violation of international law. The current resolution (1441) promises "serious consequences" if Sadam does not comply with the terms of the resolution. A unilateral invasion by 250,000 troops was NOT contemplated by any Security Council member nations with the exception of Bush. Also, "serious consequences" is so vague it is useless- it can mean anything from diplomatic sanctions such as kicking Iraq out of the UN to nuking Iraq. Anyway, since Bush will never get a resolution authorizing the type of war he obviously has planned, he recently equivocated yet again by demanding an up/down vote in by UN Security Council instead. He obviously couldn't even get a majority vote, so, as of 3/17, he's abandoned even this this feeble attempt at providing a legal trapping for his planned war. This make the case for the US and Bush being in violation of international law stronger. Should the war not go as well as Bush obviously anticipates, a UN resolution declaring the USA a rouge nation which has illegally and unwarrantedly attacked another country and whose leader is in possession of weapons of mass destruction is plausible. It may even promise "serious consequences" including, hopefully, a "regime change" in the US!. Past dire warnings by right-wingers of an impending UN occupation of the US no longer sounds so crazy.
History is replete with stories of the fall of once great and powerful nations due to their own arrogance and hubrius.
Bush's impending war mayl not be like his dad's.
| 1. | Baghdad is home to millions and will be targeted since Sadam (or one of his many doubles...) will be holed up there. Although some of its citizens will welcome an American attack, many will fight our invading troops. Should allegedly "smart" bombs and missiles be used instead of an invasion, there will be graphic images of civilian causalities filling TV screens around the world. It will further galvanize world opinion the US is a very dangerous, arrogant and stupid bully. |
| 2. | Sadam will likely use every chemical and biological weapon he can when Bush attacks. During Bush 41's war (a.k.a. "Daddy's unfinished war"), Sadam knew he was not targeted hence he didn't feel compelled to use his chemical/biological weapons. Now that Bush 43 is targeting Sadam, he no longer has that reason not defend himself with all weapons at his disposal. Many believe our troops are well protected from Sadam's chemical and biological weapons. They apparently didn't catch three recent news items: 1. 250,000 of the military's protective hoods are substandard and, worse yet, the military doesn't know which 250,000 they are. 2. The 1/03 military contract for body bags- $800,000 worth. 3 The 3/16/03 report in the local paper that Marines are resorting to using pigeons to detect when they are being attacked with chemical weapons. (BTW, the Marines first tried chickens but only one survived the Marines care and feeding- even without being exposed to toxic agents). |
Bush's administration has stated that they would respond to Sadam's use of chemical and biological weapons with any/all of the weapons at Bush's disposal - a not so thinly veiled threat to unleash some of the 10,000 nuclear weapons at his disposal. Given the current stance of much of the world against Bush and his Iraq war, the consequences of his use of nuclear weapons is too much to even ponder. An invasion by the UN or an "alliance of the willing", regime change, destruction of US weapons of mass destruction would be most justified based on Bush's BS.
It is no mere coincidence that North Korea- another "axis of evil" Bush has targeted for "regime change"- is behaving much more belligerently these days and is reviving its nuclear capabilities and increasing the range of its missiles. With his rhetoric, preemptive war policy and his imminent war in Iraq, Bush has given them ample reason to believe he is preparing to launch an attack on them next. They would be utterly stupid not to increase their defensive capabilities (e.g., make more nukes and more powerful missiles). Worse yet, they may shortly consider the 37,000 troops Bush has amassed on their border and the recent deployment of a aircraft carrier group to the waters off South Korea as sufficient reason to further escalate their hostilities or even initiate a preemptive war of their own. Hell, the North doesn't need nukes to make a mess of things- they have 10,000 artillery pieces within range of Seoul (many of them in hardened locations) which a capable of firing 400,000 rounds within the first hour of a war. I expect a great increase in the threat level when Bush attacks Iraq.
Sadam is highly concerned with how history will view him and has recently embarked on a PR job which includes spinning himself as a modern Saladan- a Muslim warrior fighting against the invading infidels. It's widely recognized as BS, but, should he be killed and/or there are mass civilian causalities, he will become yet another martyr to many Arabs and Muslims. What's worse is that he probably believes arming terrorists with chemical/biological/radiological (CBR) weapons would further enhance his image. What does he have to loose by giving them or the at least the technology to make them to, say, Bin Laden. Which leads to....
An Arab saying worth pondering: "My enemy's enemy is my friend". The history of tribal warfare in Iraq indicates it is not merely an old saw with little relevance to the case at hand. Prior to the Bush administration's hostile and belligerent words and deeds, Sadam and Bin Laden were not allies- far from it, they hated each other. Bush has likely pushed both into an alliance against a common enemy- us. Given both Sadam's and Bin Laden's past deeds, pre positioned terrorists armed with CBR weapons inside the USA with orders to attach when Bush does is not a far-fetched strategy.
In summary, two pointed reasons why Bush's war is a very bad idea:
1. Not only are our troops being placed at great risk for little potential gain- you and I right here in the USA will be at greatly increased risk or attack. Iraq may seem half a world away, but a lesson worth learning from 9/11 is how small the world really is and how strongly too many in the world hate us. Another 9/11 type attack but potentially worse, around the time of Bush's invasion of Iraq should come as no surprise.
2. MONEY How much Bush's Iraq war going to cost us taxpayers and, given Bush's deficits, our children and grandchildren?. What needed social programs is Bush going to cut to try to pay for his war? Bush speaks very little about these matters because it will scare many more Americans and further erode domestic support for his war . Recent guesstimates of the cost the war are in the range of $100 Billion. That's just the military cost for the war itself and does not include the rebuilding Iraq and ensuring democracy which Bush has promised. The cost of rebuilding Iraq are even more uncertain than the cost of Bush's invasion but are very likely to be much larger. To get an idea of just how large, ponder the head Army general's recent congressional testimony that "several hundred thousand troops" for "several years" would be required to support rebuilding. Ponder also that that is just for the military- not the cost for actually rebuilding and turning Iraq into a promised "model Mid eastern democracy". OTOH, the cost of actually rebuilding Iraq and establishing democracy (well, at best, a "representative democracy"...) will likely be shirked given Bush's similar broken promise of a "Marshal Plan" for Afghanistan.
Finally, given all of the above, I consider George Bush much more of a threat to me, my loved ones, the US and the world than Sadam.
What Should Be Done
Well, I'm tired of my attempt at being kinder and gentler, so...
If Shrub and his war mongering puppeteers are so dead set (pun intended) on war, let them damn well lead it. No, not from their "secured locations", but by leading the first troops to attack. Ditto for the congresspersons who voted for the war resolution. Nay, when the terrorist blow back from Shrubs war hits the rest of us, they will all be hiding in bunkers or, at the very least, decked out in CBR protective gear. You can bet none of them have any of the of the 250,000 defective military hoods in their "go bags" either. Meanwhile, we peons have are left with duct tape and plastic wrap.
Shrub and the majority of his puppeteers not mere war mongers. They are most aptly referred to as chicken hawks- no first hand experience of war yet they are the loudest of its proponents. I personally dislike the term chicken hawks since it insults via association an inappropriately named and beneficial avian species.
A rhetorical question: Why aren't Shrub and his fellow war mongers advocating a draft? They have targeted North Korea and Iran after Iraq in their crusade against their "axis of evil". The North Korean and Iranian wars will be a much tougher than the impending Iraq crusade. Since our active military is inadequate for relatively puny Iraq (e.g. Shrub has called up thousands of reservists and recently delayed the retirement of over 20,000 active duty military personnel, so far...), a reasonable person would conclude that a draft was needed. Additionally. even with Shrub's economic recession, military enlistment's are down.
Better yet, institute a real draft like that advocated recently by Congressman Rangle. Not a draft like that of the Viet Nam era. You know, the one dodged by Shrub and his fellow chicken hawks. A most interesting fact: very few sons and daughters of congress members have ever served in the military, much less currently serve and all but one of the later officers and hence less likely to be cannon fodder/ causalities in the chicken hawks' war. That needs to be changed that- the first drafted into the enlisted ranks should be the sons and daughters of Shrub, his fellow warmongers, and all elected officials. Further, those whose parents have supported Shrub's war should serve as proxies for their parents by being assigned to combat positions in the front lines in Iraq, Iran, N. Korean and who knows where else. Of course that will never happen under the current regime. Very much like the fabled magic hand of the greed heads' "free market", a representative democracy has it's own magic when it comes to rewarding those who allegedly do the representing.
I previous discussed in kinder/gentiler terms above why the preemptive war policy of the Shrub regime is stupid when there is no clear and present danger to us. As dumb as he is, even Shrub should realize that what goes around usually comes around. It's somewhat similar to what his Bible says about those that live by the sword. That brings up the chronic and endemic problem of professing (or as Twain observed, professional) Christians like Bush- gross hypocrisy. The Shrub regime will have no valid basis to criticize or punish any country or leaders which his regime has has preemptively targeted, deemed an "axis of evil" or otherwise been made to feel threatened by his BS when they launch their own preemptive "regime change" policy on their enemies....
Yet more hypocrisy: Shrub dodged the draft during Viet Nam by using his daddy's connections to score a very safe and hence highly sought and rare slot in the Texas air national guard. Worst, he had the audacity to go AWOL for over a year! At least Clinton was torn by the path of draft dodging he took. Shrub had no such qualms about his. A damn fine crusader leader!
It is about oil. When I read of the Shrub regime repeatedly insisting that their Iraq crusade isn't about oil, I recall what the great barb said about folks that protest too much. Also there was the recent slip by an Administration mouthpiece that "securing the Iraq oil fields" is a prime first goal of the invasion. They later "clarified" the slip by saying they were only going to secure the oil "for the Iraq people" and, later still, that oil revenues would help pay for rebuilding Iraq. They are obviously making up lies as they go along. Next thing you know, they'll try to sell us vacation homes in Afghanistan!
For additional evidence on the monetary cost of an Iraq war and Bush's veracity, consider Turkey's demand for 26 Billion dollars for hosting Bush's troops. The amount demanded is astounding, but what's especially striking is the Turkish politicians' demand that it be, "cash only / no checks (or promises) accepted". Put simply, they do not trust Bush- and rightly so given his broken promise to rebuild Afghanistan, arrogant breaking of treaties and agreements and general self-serving arrogance. I don't blame them for wanting cash on the barrel head! Then there's the little matter of 90+ percent of Turkish citizens being against Bush's Iraq crusade. Attempting to justify the war's impact on them with some worthless checks would very likely prompt their citizenry to engage in a bit of "regime change" of there very own. Even billions in cash may not prevent Turkish "regime change" when the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq run amok and/or Turkey escalates it's persecution of the Kurds. Say, does anyone still remember "our" good buddy the Shah of Iran and what the results (so far...) of that bit of regime change have been. How about "our" support of Bin Laden in fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Will we never learn that geopolitical meddling is frequently most unwise and, at the very least fraught with unintended and unpredictable consequences?
Attempting to buy allies with bribes is simply wrong. Having been a greedy business executive, Shrub likely finds nothing immoral, unprincipled or just plain wrong with offering or taking bribes. As Molly Ivins would say, "it's just bidness". Shrub said he'd fight Iraq with an "alliance of the willing". It's yet another of his "miscalculations" for it's now an alliance of the bribed. Given the attempted bribing of Turkish politicians, who is Shrub going to bribe next and how much will they demand? For starters, several members nations of the UN Security Council have not yet stated their position. Their votes for war are critical if Shrub's crusade is to have even the illusion of respectability- a majority vote of the Security Council. Then there's France (bless them!) and Russia and China who have promised a veto. Even alleged Shrub supporter Fox of Mexico has come out against the war. Alas, he's wavering a bit of late. Early in his reign, Bush promised Fox he would ensure fruition of something Fox wants very badly- the legalization of otherwise illegal Mexican immigrants in the USA. Shrub of course lied to him on that- tax cuts for the rich were much more important to him. Methinks Fox's position may be influenced by yet another of Shrub's bribes. After Shrub's broken promises on rebuilding Afghanistan and Turkey's demand for cash, maybe Fox has wised up and at least gotten in any promises from Bush in writing. Nay, Shrub's abandoning the antimissile treaty should convince Fox that even promises in writing from Shrub would be hardly worth the paper they are written on.
Except for the rabid Tony Blair, Shrub has a great bunch of allies- willing with the words but unwilling to risk the blood of their citizen's. They can talk the talk but (wisely) refuse to walk the walk. An example from a recent interview of a Polish minister wherein he stated Poland "fully supported" Shrub's impending attack of Iraq. When asked what kind of support they were actually planning to provide, he mentioned only diplomatic and material support. Not a fleeting mention of troops- not even support or behind-the- lines troops Same goes for another "bold" ally- Spain. Can't blame their politicians for not wanting to risk casualties- the vast majority of their citizens are against the war, hence body bags arriving back home could result in their being "regime changed" by their own citizens.
Shrub's failure to even support much less commit to joining the newly formed International Criminal Court was further evidence of his arrogance. It was not dumb tho'. Implementation of his policy of preemptive, unilateral war on whoever he deems "evil" is a violation of international law, hence he and his fellow chicken hawks would have been (and I hope maybe still will be) prime candidates for trial, conviction and punishment as the dangerous warmongers they are.
I for one am sick and damn tired of Shrub's hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous, shallow, divisive and insulting misuse and abuse of religion and religious rhetoric to muster support for both himself and his impending and future wars. Since he professes to be a Christian, he should at least try to ponder with what obviously meager intellect he posses the relevance of what his favorite philosopher is stated as saying in Matthew 5:8 & 9,
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.Although I've tried my best to give Shrub and his war mongering puppeteers all of the hell they so richly deserve, I must admit that I agree to a certain extent with his "regime change" rhetoric. I differ in that I sincerely hope it is his regime which is changed. Further, I hope we as a nation and all of our future leads finally actually learn and heed some lessons we should have learned from Viet Nam about arrogance, war and their consequences.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God".
A Post Script:
Until recently, I felt conflicted and hence a bit hesitant about being
strongly and loudly against Shrub's impending Iraq war, his unilateral
preemptive war policy and his painting the US as the world's most dangerous
bully in the minds of too many. The basis for my hesitancy was my
fellow citizens who serve in the military. When I recently read that
80% of the military votes republican, I lost 80% of that hesitancy.
I was further radicalized by the utterly arrogant and insanely macho attitude
of a vast majority of the troops as reported in interviews in the Washington
Post. To the few in the military who believe Shrub's war and
war policies to be at least unwise, if not evil, I sincerely apologize
for whatever harm my rants against Bush and his arrogant warmounging policies
may cause. To the rest, I sincerely hope you at least learn some
lessons about both war and supporting a stupid political party- and the
even stupider idiot they selected to run for president.