|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
American public left in dark on US war aims in Iraq |
Current rating: 0 |
by Patrick Martin
(No verified email address) |
06 Aug 2002
Modified: 07 Aug 2002 |
|
The political pretext for hostilities with Iraq keeps shifting, as the Bush administration seeks, so far unsuccessfully, to find a pretext that can stampede the public behind its war plans. |
The discussion that has broken out in official Washington over when and how to go to war with Iraq is in no sense a genuine public debate. Representatives of various factions of the ruling elite-Bush administration officials, congressional leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, the military-intelligence establishment-are weighing in. But the American people are excluded. There is no genuine democratic content in these discussions, which include, among other topics, intensive consideration of how to manipulate public opinion.
The very terms of the debate at Senate hearings held July 31-August 1 revealed the cynical and sinister character of the congressional proceedings. Speaker after speaker agreed that Saddam Hussein should be removed as Iraqi ruler and that the United States government had the right to carry out a policy of "regime change" in a country on the other side of the world. The only differences expressed were over the best methods for accomplishing this goal-and the best means for "selling" such a war to the American people.
The official US debate might be entitled, with apologies to Pirandello, "Six Wars in Search of a Pretext." The entire political and media establishment agrees on the goal of war with Iraq. But different factions propose rival scenarios.
Some advocate the Afghan model: the use of high-tech weaponry, CIA spies and a small force of US troops on the ground, combined with massive air power. Others, particularly in the Pentagon, see something more akin to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, with half as many troops, perhaps 250,000, to occupy the country. Another proposal is for tank columns to race from Kuwait to Baghdad, targeting only the Iraqi Republican Guards, in the belief that regular Iraqi army troops will not fight for Saddam Hussein. A fourth version is an airborne assault on the Iraqi capital, aimed at decapitating the regime by killing the Iraqi president. A scenario involving a military coup and the assassination of Hussein also has its boosters.
The political pretext for hostilities with Iraq keeps shifting, as the Bush administration seeks, so far unsuccessfully, to find a pretext that can stampede the public behind its war plans.
On one day war against Iraq is necessary because UN weapons inspectors have been absent from the country since 1998, and Baghdad has supposedly resumed the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. (However, when Iraq offered last week to readmit the inspectors, the Bush administration immediately rejected the proposal).
The next day Hussein's removal from power is declared a must because the Iraqi ruler already has weapons of mass destruction and may give them to Al Qaeda-although the enmity between the Islamic fundamentalism of Al Qaeda and the secular nationalism of Hussein's Ba'athist regime is well established.
A day later it turns out that Hussein must be removed because he might use weapons of mass destruction against American targets himself (although that would be suicide for his regime) or against Israel (which possesses an estimated 200 nuclear bombs).
On the morrow Hussein is declared a threat to his Arab neighbors and to the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf to world markets, despite the fact that Iraq signed a boundary agreement with Kuwait giving up all claims on the emirate, and that all of the Gulf states publicly oppose an American attack on Baghdad.
By the end of the week, Saddam Hussein is declared responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, justifying a retaliatory war.
This latest-and most desperate-attempt to manufacture a casus belli was reported by the Los Angeles Times August 2. The newspaper wrote that the White House and Pentagon had decided to endorse claims that suicide hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic several months before September 11, although both the CIA and FBI have dismissed the Czech report as unproven and unfounded. As the front-page LA Times report made clear, the Bush administration made its decision not as a result of new intelligence information, but because it felt the need for a September 11 link to generate support for its war plans.
The reason for this thrashing about in search of a pretext for war is the fact that the real motives cannot be revealed to the American people. The preparations for war have a twofold cause: the drive by the American ruling elite to establish unchallenged control over Persian Gulf oil, the most important strategic prize in the world, and the desire of the Bush administration to divert public attention from the mounting social and political crisis at home, expressed most clearly in the corporate scandals and the plunging stock market.
At the Senate hearings, both Democrats and Republicans expressed concern that the Bush administration had failed to devise a workable plan for military operations, mobilize support internationally, or rally American public opinion behind an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska asked, "Would we further destabilize the entire Middle East if we took military action against him? Who would be our allies? And what kind of support would there be inside Iraq? These kinds of questions are critical. You could inflame the whole Middle East plus Iran."
Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware, voiced confidence in assurances from the Bush administration that there would be no overt military moves against Iraq until early in 2003. He said he would be "very, very surprised," adding that President Bush is "nowhere near making the hard decision as to when and how." But in a subsequent appearance on the NBC program Meet the Press August 4, Biden said that ultimately the decision would be for war, and that Bush would be able to make a case for it to Congress and the public.
In his opening statement, the committee's ranking Republican, Richard Lugar of Indiana, painted a somber picture of the consequences of war in the Persian Gulf. "This is not an action that can be sprung on the American people," he said. "We must estimate soberly the human and economic cost of war plans and postwar plans."
The Senate hearings adjourned August 1 and will resume in September with testimony from administration officials. Similar hearings will begin before the House International Affairs Committee, chaired by conservative Republican Henry Hyde of Illinois, who headed the impeachment effort against President Clinton. Hyde said that a full-scale invasion of Iraq "may not be the best course of action," and urged "serious debate" on whatever plan is eventually proposed by the White House.
The American press continues to cite deep divisions within the Bush administration over the war plans. The Washington Post reported August 1 that Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "are pushing most forcefully for aggressively confronting Hussein, arguing that he presents a serious threat and that time is not on the side of the United States," while Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet "are asking skeptical questions about a military campaign, especially about the aftermath of what most in the administration assume would be a fairly swift victory."
Much of the senior Army and Navy command has opposed an immediate strike at Iraq on practical grounds, lining up with Powell, the former chairman of the joint chiefs, in "an unusual alliance between the State Department and the uniformed side of the Pentagon, elements of the government that more often seem to oppose each other in foreign policy debates."
The Post account said that at a July 10 meeting of the Defense Policy Board, a civilian advisory group that has spearheaded the drive for war as soon as possible, officials voiced frustration with military opposition and called for "a few heads to roll" in the Army command.
The criticism of Bush's policy towards Iraq voiced by Army generals, Democrats and liberals has nothing to do with opposition to American aggression. Rather, the concern is that the administration is proceeding recklessly, without making the preparations necessary for a protracted and bloody struggle and without sufficiently considering the international ramifications of such a war.
There is particular concern over the vehement opposition to a US war expressed by most of the European countries and by longtime US allies and stooges in the Middle East itself. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, voicing the common view of the European governments, except for Great Britain, said July 30 they would support a US war against Iraq only if it was endorsed by the UN Security Council-an unlikely event given that France, Russia and China all have veto power there.
King Abdullah of Jordan visited Washington August 1 and met with Bush at the White House. During a stop in London on his way to the talks, he gave press interviews declaring that US officials were making a "tremendous mistake" if they ignored international opposition to an invasion of Iraq. "[E]verybody is saying this is a bad idea," he said. "If it seems America says we want to hit Baghdad, that's not what Jordanians think, or the British, the French, the Russians, the Chinese and everybody else."
Abdullah rebuffed claims by US officials that they would use Jordan as a staging area for troop movements into Iraq and air strikes on that country. Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher said, "Jordan has made it clear it cannot be used as a launching pad," and added, "we have not been asked."
In a column published August 1 in the Washington Post, Samuel Berger, national security adviser in the Clinton administration, warned against the danger of "a Bay of Pigs in the Persian Gulf"-i.e., an ill-prepared attack that results in a military and political debacle.
Berger wrote, "[W]e must define the necessary objective more broadly than simply eliminating Hussein's regime. We must achieve that in a way that enhances-not diminishes-America's overall security." The former Clinton aide expressed particular concern over the destabilization of other regimes in the region, concluding, "It would be a Pyrrhic victory, for example, if we got rid of Saddam Hussein only to face a radical government in Pakistan with a ready-made nuclear arsenal."
Similar concerns were voiced in an August 3 editorial in the New York Times, which appealed to Bush to "talk candidly about why he feels military action against Iraq may soon be necessary, and what the goals, costs and potential consequences of a war would be." Expressing fear of the consequences of even a successful war, the Times noted, "Military victory in Iraq would leave Washington temporarily responsible for guiding the future of a major Arab oil-producing country in the heart of the Middle East. The first challenge would be preventing Iraq's dissolution... A splintered Iraq would tempt Iran, frighten Turkey and perhaps lead to regional war."
The Times concluded, with typical sanctimony, that a unilateral US attack on Iraq "must be preceded by democratic deliberation and informed decision-making." However, there is no assurance that the Bush administration will even seek formal congressional sanction for military action.
Both Biden and Lugar said they expected Bush to do so, as his father did in 1990 before the first US war in the Persian Gulf. Two Senate Democrats, Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, introduced a resolution July 30 calling on the administration not to initiate a war with Iraq without congressional consent. Republican Arlen Specter introduced a similar resolution two weeks earlier, but Republican Minority Leader Trent Lott said the White House could launch a war on Iraq on its own authority.
The US Constitution explicitly reserves the power to declare war to Congress, but this provision has been largely ignored by American presidents throughout the Cold War and its aftermath. The last war declared by Congress was World War II, and US governments have waged wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, and dispatched troops for lesser combat in dozens of other countries, either with no congressional vote at all or with resolutions that fell short of an outright declaration of war.
Copyright 2002 World Socialist Web Site All rights reserved
|
See also:
http://www.wsws.org/
|
Comments
|
you are completely full of shit |
by first time caller
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
06 Aug 2002
|
On the "American public left in dark", Patrick Martin sez...
"The very terms of the debate at Senate hearings held July 31-August 1 revealed the cynical and sinister character of the congressional proceedings."
Open hearings in a free society on sensitive military planning..that's leaving the public in the dark? Doublespeak befitting of Mao. Is being a communist kind of like being a Cubs fan? |
|
A Virtual Potemkin Village |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Aug 2002
|
"The very terms of the debate at Senate hearings held July 31-August 1 revealed the cynical and sinister character of the congressional proceedings."
These were stage-managed Potemkin Villages that had as their exclusive aim the manufacture of consent to go to war. This hardly befits the standard of deabte that _should_ exist in a free and democratic society. I would say that your quote from Martin's article, along with the rest of the dog-and-pony show in Congress that he documents, hardly gives you a basis to declare the march toward war with Iraq, aided and abetted by a compliant and unquestioning press, is a product of open decision making. |
|
And ketchup is a vegetable |
by Celia
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Aug 2002
|
I love that: "Defense Policy Board, a civilian advisory group." It's civilian in about the same way Donald Rumsfeld is a civilian.
"1. The Defense Policy Board will serve the public interest by providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense and will be responsible for research and analysis of topics, long or short range, addressed to it by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy.
2. Individual Defense Policy Board members will be selected by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy with the approval of the Secretary of Defense. Membership will consist primarily of private sector individuals with distinguished backgrounds in national security affairs, but may include no more than four (4) government officials. Membership will be approxomately thirty (30). From time to time, associate members may be appointed to the Defense Policy Board to participate in an assessment of a particular issue. They shall number no more than four (4) at any one time."
It's interesting that the board's charter was filed on August 3rd, 1991. http://www.odam.osd.mil/omp/pdf/412.pdf |
|
Facts Are the Best Cure for This Outbreak of War Fever |
by Simon Tisdall
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
07 Aug 2002
Modified: 11:03:35 PM |
for first time thinker...
something from across the pond
Supporters of an Attack on Iraq are Struggling to Find Credible Reasons
It may come as a surprise to George Bush but the war over Iraq has already begun - in Britain. Among the warrior class that favors bashing Saddam, new cases of what might be termed second Gulf war syndrome are reported every day.
Symptoms include hot flushes of rage, irrational and confused thinking, unsightly rashes of adjectives and the pathological impugning of the motives of those opposed to war.
These outbreaks of belligerence are naturally alarming to normal, healthy people - including, as polls indicate, a majority of the British public. Yet this early diagnosis of second Gulf war syndrome means that preventive measures can now have a good chance of success - before irreversible mistakes on Iraq are made.
In the absence of a lead from the Blair government, the warmongers have had an ideal opportunity to make their case. But under counter-attack from a phalanx of retired generals, former foreign secretaries, MPs, peers and battling bishops, they are failing to do so. Their positions grow untenable, their case becomes acute. The debilitating weakness of their arguments is exposed for all to see. These victims of second Gulf war syndrome may be pitied. But they must not be allowed to make victims of others, here or in the Middle East.
The recommended treatment for war fever is a strict diet of fact. The warmongers say Saddam is a terrorist. But the Bush administration's attempts to link him to September 11 and al-Qaida lack any evidential basis, as even US intelligence admits. Donald Rumsfeld claims al-Qaida fugitives are harbored by Baghdad. But this is an assertion without proof. In truth, the elderly US defense secretary sees al-Qaida everywhere - a classic symptom of second Gulf war syndrome.
Bush's people find more supposed evidence of terrorism in Iraqi financial aid to the Palestinians. But Saudi Arabia, Britain and the whole EU also send aid. In arguing the case for war, the best a recent Daily Telegraph editorial could offer on terrorist links was: "Ten years ago, it (Iraq) was implicated in a plot to assassinate former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait." Gotcha? Not really, chaps.
Warmongers say Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and will, sooner or later, blow us all up. This, Bush states, is the main reason why Iraq poses "a continuing, unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States".
If examined carefully, this claim refers to the possibility that Saddam will obtain a nuclear bomb at some time in the future. No credible expert, including Rolf Ekeus, the UN's chief weapons inspector from 1991-97, claims Iraq has that menacing capability now.
The Foreign Office does not make any such claim, either. It points only to precursor chemicals and munitions that UN inspectors failed to find before leaving Iraq in 1998 that may, or may not, constitute a potential Iraqi biological and chemical weapons capability.
This, presumably, is why the US and Britain have yet to produce the promised dossier of evidence on the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This is why full UN inspections should be resumed and why recent Iraqi offers to cooperate should be taken up. And this is why the Economist's recent pro-war editorial teetered on the disingenuous: "The honest choices now are to give up and give in, or to remove Mr Hussein before he gets his bomb." This is not today's choice. Indeed, it is no choice at all. Gotcha again? Come off it.
Warmongers say Saddam poses a threat to his neighbors. In fact, he has assiduously repaired ties with the Arab League and has been courting Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. He has even sent envoys to Iran. To a man, the Arab neighbors. oppose a war - and so do Turkey and most NATO allies.
Waxing desperate, warmongers resort to the legal case. Saddam, they say, is in breach of several UN security council resolutions. But, as the Bishop of Oxford has argued, by threatening to attack a sovereign state without a specific UN mandate, without demonstrating just cause, and without exhausting all chances of a peaceful resolution, the US and Britain risk making an even greater mockery of the law.
If an attack on Iraq is ultimately justified by the US (as many suspect it will be) as an act of self-defense under article 51 of the UN charter, it will be time to tear up the charter. From then on, further acts of international aggression, perhaps by the US against Iran, or India against Pakistan, may confidently be anticipated.
When all else fails, warmongers resort, with unconscious irony, to morality. A man ever driven by instinct rather than intellect, Bush is the arch-exponent of this approach. In short, Saddam is "bad"; by implication, Bush and those who agree with him are "good". The president often falls back on this "us" versus "them" argument. It underpins his whole rationale for the global "war on terror". He was at it again at the weekend. "We owe it to the future of civilization not to allow the world's worst leaders... to blackmail freedom-loving nations with the world's worst weapons," he said.
This sort of simplistic moralizing is a bit embarrassing for high-minded warmongers. Yet note his use of "leaders" in the plural, a barb deliberately aimed at Tehran, Pyongyang and Tripoli. Bush's dose of second Gulf war syndrome is at an advanced stage. He may be beyond help.
Riding gallantly to Bush's rescue comes Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips. For her, the reasons for bashing Saddam are obvious. She devotes her energies instead to questioning the motives of those who do not agree. These are the "appeasement factions". These are the people who are really ill, suffering from "a truly pathological anti-Americanism", she writes. The intimate bedfellows of those holding such views are "anti-Jewish hatred" and "Islamic fascism".
Gotcha? Give me a break. It is when the warrior class reaches this intemperate, logic-shredding point in its discourse that those opposed to the war know they can win. Everybody would like to see the back of Saddam. But containment, deterrence and negotiation, and economic, political and diplomatic pressure, are the ways to achieve this end. It is not exciting or even particularly satisfying. But it can work. Violence is Saddam's way. It should not be ours.
Whatever ranting warmongers may say, war on Iraq is not right, not sensible, not legal, and not inevitable. As anybody who stood on the road to Basra in February 1991 and witnessed the utter devastation that accompanied the bloody conclusion of the first Gulf war can testify, war is a sickness. But there is a cure.
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
|
|
