I Wrote This Four Years Ago...

...In response to a friend's email.

I wish I had been wrong.

August 22, 2002

<< Why would Iraq be concerned with justification one way
or another? Did Hussein wait for justification before
he took Kuwait? Or is Arab unification sufficient
justification? >>

Actually, it's not like Bush II is waiting for any justification to "take Saddam out." This has been a policy in search of a justification for the past ten years.

If it is a choice between ONE little Iraqi girl dying from American bombs or lower oil prices and the "honor" of the Bush family (which is what this has ALWAYS been about) I will choose the girl's life EVERY time.

Does anyone remember that Bush I's State Department essentially gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait (do an Internet search on April Glaspie)?

What is the evidence? We hear the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" every day. The argument, right now is this: "We know this Saddam guy is a really bad guy, and he is very keen to have weapons of mass destruction. We think he is probably doing a whole lot of research on them, though we are not sure how far along the research is or even if he has them. Did we mention that he
wants them? And there is that Osama guy. We haven't caught him yet, but (I know this is a long sentence, but bear with me, it's War!) he (if he is still alive) and Al-Quaeda would really love to have some anthrax, maybe a portable nuclear device, or some smallpox, or maybe even a Scud (or two). Once Saddam has completed creating his weapons of mass destruction which we are sure he
is making, he will get Osama on the horn (if he is still alive) and give Osama what he wants."

And when asked, how come we cannot bomb from the air, and why do we need an invasion force of 250,000, Rumsfeld chimes in: "these guys are so sneaky--even though we don't have complete evidence that Mr. Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction, it's because they are hidden and only a ground force will do."

All the above speculation and non-evidence neglects the fact that Saddam, a secular Persian dictator, wants nothing to do with Osama and the Islamists. (Though if we do invade, it actually makes it MORE likely Saddam and Osama will put their differences aside and become fast friends. It also makes it MORE likely that Saddam will use these weapons (if he has them).)

You might say, "But Tom, he has used gas on his own people." And I will say back at you that "he committed this war crime (which it was) when he was a U.S. client."

Where is the debate? Unfortunately I could not watch Mr. Senator Biden's hearings on Iraq this week, though I read a lot about them in the paper. On one hand, I am happy that at least some of this stuff is being talked about in public; on the other hand, the hearings seem to be a little bit of a charade. The only point of view that was represented was the one that had already decided that Saddam must be removed and that some sort of invasion
was inevitable. There was no-one there to refute that assumption. I really would have liked to have seen Scott Ritter (http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/17/saddam.ritter.cnna/), the former UN weapons inspector testify. Instead, the hearings were just about means.

What does Bush and the Administration want out of this? Just Saddam dead? A pro-US (pro Big Oil) puppet? Parliamentary democracy? There is no sign that they have done any thinking about what a post-Saddam Iraq region would look like.

And there are many dangers. Turkey, a US ally (which just abolished the death penalty the other day) doesn't want the Iraqi Kurds getting too much freedom; their own Kurds might start getting some ideas. Not to worry--Mr. Cheney visited Turkey last month to give the Turkish government assurances that we don't really give a damn about the Kurds. But I though Mr. Bush was clear that one of the reasons for war is Saddam's treatment of the Kurds... . (I guess the only conclusion is that we'll use the Kurds to say Saddam killed a bunch of them, but when push comes to shove... .)

Other dangers--besides a likely collapse of the region into instability, there are other things to think about. What will Iran do? It's (at least rhetorically) part of the "Axis of Evil." At the very least, it might want some Iraqi territory. I do not know if that means it will enter what could very well become a general regional war, but I am sure the Administration knows, that's their job. What about Russia? Even though we won the Cold War, and are the only Hyper Power (I wish I had invented the term, but, alas, I did not! (http://www.wordspy.com/words/hyper-power.asp) left, Russia still has designs on the area. They have been building nuclear plants for Iran (though this week Putin said they might be stopping). What will they do? I am sure the Administration has figured that out.

All these things have to be discussed, IN PUBLIC, before we can even think about committing the country to a war like this. No-one in public life is asking or answering these questions. And whatever one thinks about the underlying issue(s), the Congress must not abdicate its power to declare war. We are not repelling an attack. Since the drumbeats of war have been beating at least since March, we have time, at the very least, for Congress to invoke the War Powers Act.

We (as citizens) have to ask: Is this war just? (Though I am not even sure if I buy just war theory anymore!!)

But it really all comes back to that girl and many like her who will die from bombs paid for by my tax dollars. I cannot, and I will never, support that.

If I am complaining, so be it. I could not live with myself if I didn't.