IRAQ ATTACK (25)

by JANN FLURY 
Columnist EducationNews.org
Appearing Exclusively every Monday

February 24, 2003

President George W. Bush has done a good job of convincing the world that he is prepared to attack Iraq. If the President manages to disarm Saddam without a fight the international community will be thankful and view him as a hero. So far, the game has been a costly exercise for America, and the President is to be congratulated for his dedication in bringing Saddam to heal.

War is serious business, and launching a pre-emptive strike is tantamount to starting a war. To start a "good"war, certain conditions must prevail: there must be a "just cause"to rally the nations of the world to the occasion, and there must be a suitably vilified, worthy opponent that presents a clear and present danger. In the eyes of many nations, the US has failed to make the case against Iraq, and they believe that starting a war is not a last resort for Bush, but his primary goal.

The Bush war campaign against Iraq has been fraught with rumors, allegations, contradictions, coercion, and moral hypocrisies from the beginning, and it hit a serious glitch after the 9/11 attack on the US, when the President announced to the world that he was declaring war on terrorism, and "Either you're with us, or against us." For many that translated into "Do as you're told, or else . . . ." Obviously, in times of danger or attack, neighbors and friends come to each other's aid, and no sane nation supports terrorism as a legitimate form of conventional warfare. However, not all nations agree with the American approach for stamping out the scourge and want to fight terrorism their own way.

The Bush campaign has suitably vilified Saddam by billing him as a cruel, and evil dictator who has built and continues to build "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD). He has been accused of oppression, torture, and allegedly gassing thousands of his own people. He is billed as being dangerous, elusive, cunning, and a threat to American national security.

No material evidence exists that Saddam is hiding WMD. Still, the US, without proof, insists that he is, indeed, hiding such weapons and producing more. Furthermore, if he doesn't produce them they will attack Iraq. Such conditions are rather hard to meet. If Saddam has no WMD, he has nothing to hide; consequently, he has nothing to reveal; because he can't show what he doesn't have, according to Bush logic, he must be hiding something, which is cause enough for war. Saddam must surrender all the chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons the Bush administration claims he has, or he must show proof that he doesn't have them. If he fails to deliver on this impossible task, he is in breach of UN Resolution 1441 and the world must sanction a US attack. Most recently, the Bush campaign even tried to link Iraq to the terrorist group Al Qaeda to justify an attack on the grounds that Iraq is a terrorist nation. In the eyes of the US administration, Saddam is guilty of something, until he can prove otherwise. His time is up; however, Bush has assured the world that America will make it a good and honorable war: "Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, but with Saddam."

It is hard to believe--and the international community hasn't forgotten--that it was the US who built up and supported Saddam in the first place. It was the US that provided him with "Weapons of Mass Destruction," including chemical weapons, that he used against the Kurds and Iranians--with full knowledge and approval of the US. It was a convenient case of "The enemy of our enemy is our friend."

Saddam, of course, has been vilified and billed as a cruel and evil dictator that can't be trusted, ten times over. Any further rhetoric on that subject is redundant overkill and ineffective. Furthermore, those qualities don't set him apart from many other leaders in power around the world today--some of which get full US support.

Iraq hardly poses a threat to anyone today. There is no rush to bombing the country back into the stone age. Saddam is about as dangerous, elusive, or cunning as a goat that is staked out as bait in the middle of the desert: He is a sitting duck.

When it comes to "Weapons of Mass Destruction," farmers across America have stockpiled more chemical nerve agents in the form of pesticides and herbicides than Saddam could ever muster. And North American farmers store more explosive power in the form of diesel fuel and artificial fertilizers than Saddam could ever hide. And they park their 600-mile range, "half-ton-pickup delivery system" right in their driveway.

To nitpick about noncompliance with UN Resolution 1441 is counterproductive and tends to discredit any altruistic motives the US may have in the Middle East. Resolution 1441 was passed by consensus, based on allegations, unsubstantiated claims, opinions, and suppositions that were not necessarily fact. Strict enforcement of the Resolution smacks of bias and double standards. After all, many more UN resolutions against Israel have not been complied with, have gone unheeded, and ignored with impunity: without any efforts of international enforcement or American support. Much of the international community believes that war with Iraq is not a last resort for President Bush, but his primary goal and marks the beginning of a new era of American imperialism.

No amount of propaganda can turn an attack on Iraq into a "just cause" or an honourable war: not even a worthwhile sporting event. Attacking Iraq this time will be the same as it was in Desert Storm: a one-sided affair like a turkey shoot, shooting fish in a barrel, or, more realistically and from a more human perspective, slaughtering infants in a playpen. There is no glory in that. There is no honor in that--it isn't even good sport. To hail such actions as victories and honor the generals with ticker-tape parades is in extremely bad taste.

To justify a pre-emptive strike, President Bush promises to liberate Iraq, free its people, and democratize the country for the good of all--that raises considerable skepticism. Historically, the American concept of establishing a new democracy has been analogues to setting up an overseas division of a multinational commercial enterprise. Home office (the American administration) appoints a suitably devious, aggressive, but obedient puppet as president of the new "democracy." He is told to follow home office directions and produce results. "Don't bother us with details, just make it work. Make the operation profitable and follow our instructions." Banana Republics come to mind.

It takes more courage for any nation to stand by its own convictions and
lobby against attacking Iraq than it does to get on the war bandwagon with
the US. To imply that anyone not joining in is a turncoat and a coward is childish, schoolyard-bully tactics, and not at all becoming of the world's greatest power. Such ham-fisted tactics don't win friends or influence nations.

It has been said that "Truth is often the first casualty of war," and that "You can fool some of the people all the time . . . ." Both, governments and opposing factions would dearly love to expand that phenomenon to where they "could fool all the people all the time." Paradoxically, some of the biggest objectors to war with Iraq, calling the government dishonest, are the academics who, themselves, believe and teach our youth that truth is unimportant; opinion is all that matters; that there is no right or wrong; and that decisions should be arrived at through consensus and need not be based necessarily on fact. These academics have opened debate in universities across North America, broadcasting anti-war sentiments that are spilling over to public schools where teachers sway the opinion of our youth without regard for fact or sound reason.

Different groups in society have a different outlook on what conditions justify making war. In the eyes of the bleeding-heart doves, justifiable conditions never exist; in the eyes of the pseudo-patriotic hawks, few are necessary; and in the eyes of governments, if valid conditions don't prevail, they simply fabricate some. To the informed pragmatist and true patriot, war is sometimes necessary, providing justifiable conditions have been established as fact, and a "just cause" does, indeed, exist. That case has not been adequately made against Iraq.

The doves and hawks are two opposing factions with preformed opinions based on group think. They are products of our modern education system. Both reach conclusions without reference to truth, but make "informed choices" based on emotions and popular opinion, without reference to any moral guidelines. They have been taught to believe that there is no right or wrong, and truth doesn't matter.

Slanting, twisting, and stretching the truth--as well as clever lying--are all recognized tools of global politics and diplomacy; however, they must be used in a manner subtle enough so as not to offend the intelligence of the international community. The President's public relations machinery has failed to demonstrate that war with Iraq is essential, and that it represents a "just and honourable cause." In fact, some of what they have offered up as evidence has been widely viewed with skepticism and an insult to the intelligent. It seems the Bush administration has miscued in their bid to sway popular world opinion.

Whether it is the US leadership manipulating nations, or the UN, the world, the caveats are the same: Learn the facts and base your opinions and decisions on truth, not emotional propaganda.