POINT: The War on Terror–the U.S. should avoid violent conflict
After 9/11, President Bush told us that the “war on terrorism” would be a “new kind of war,” and would persist for some time. Neither description was very well-defined or reassuring, but many Americans gave the benefit of the doubt.
However, what was sold as a quest to protect America has morphed into a terrifying buffet of irrelevant and dangerous right-wing policy takeovers that closely resemble the secret-police states the terrorists call home. The biggest prize, however, is Bush’s drive to declare war on Iraq.
Bush & Co. have refused to take peace for an answer, and have invented ever-shifting rationales for the most grave and solemn decision that governments make.
First, Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaida. However, the best efforts of the Pentagon and CIA were unable to substantiate this. Then, Iraq was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. When intelligence analysts estimated 10 years to nuclear capability, Bush shifted yet again to Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions demanding disarmament and submittal to weapons inspections.
The bizarre and macabre irony of the Bush administration, which has defied more international laws than any administration in history, citing Iraq’s violation of U.N. resolutions as a pretext for war, is lost on nobody except U.S. media. Bush’s sudden concern for U.N. rules and resolutions is particularly odd, considering America’s long partnership with Saddam.
Starting with a friendly, diplomatic handshake by one Donald Rumsfeld in 1983, Saddam was a “strategic asset” in the Middle East. The Reagan and Bush #1 administrations maintained a close alliance with Saddam right up through the July 1990 declaration of our ambassador that Bush #1 “wanted better and deeper relations” with Iraq. Saddam invaded Kuwait a week later.
Recently declassified documents prove Reagan administration officials knew fully that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops and suspected Kurdish sympathizers. But in the words of then-Assistant Secretary of State Richard Murphy, “The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is … important to our long-term political and economic objectives.” The Reagan and Bush #1 administrations also ignored our own companies supplying those chemical weapons and other components of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs, including anthrax. We don’t need inspectors to tell us what Saddam has — we’ve got the invoices.
Conversely, Bush #2 has skillfully created a standoff with North Korea, believed by intelligence analysts to be a few years from nuclear capability. However, Kim Jong must wait in line behind Saddam for evil-doer status, because his poor country lacks oil reserves. Our thirst for oil is the central factor in America’s Middle East involvement. For all Bush’s bellicose rhetoric about defeating evil, this will be America’s first War of Convenience — a war to feed our gas-guzzling SUV’s.
In case you’re wondering, Unocal finally got its oil pipeline deal from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan. The fact that U.S.-installed President Hamid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant didn’t hurt. The Bush administration had enthusiastically courted the Taliban for this pipeline through spring 2001.
Iraqi civilians hate Saddam Hussein, but they know the suffering of a decade of America’s economic sanctions, combined with near-total destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure during the Gulf War.
If we want peace and justice, we will repudiate Bush’s war fantasies, and demand foreign policy based on democracy, human rights, and environmental sustainability.
Jim Steitz is a senior majoring in environmental studies. Comments can be sent to jim.steitz@usu.edu.