"A
flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Congressman John Murtha
|Dahr
Jamail's Iraq Dispatches |
Rep. John Murtha
Statement, 11/2005 |
| A Time to
Break Silence |
|
Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq" by John Pilger After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations (backed strongly by the US and UK) imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq that lasted for 10 years (1991-2001); the harsh restrictions on imports of everything, including access to key medicines, resulted in over a million deaths, more than half a million of which were women and children. That's more deaths than the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan and 9/11 combined. The purpose was regime change, but it never came. The overwhelming majority of those killed were the poor, elderly, women and children. Empirically, sanctions overwhelmingly punish the poor, the destitute. While the sanctions were in place, the richest people in control of the resources (Saddam Hussein et al.) still had everything they wanted: food, cars, mansions, access to the best medicines, etc. |
 "All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." -President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union "...Vieira de Mello began to see the
growing insurgency as the consequence of an increasingly malignant
occupation. Hemmed in by Resolution 1483, however, he concluded that the
only way to improve security in Baghdad was to work even harder to get the
Coalition to give up power. Coalition troops, he told a Brazilian
journalist, had to “have greater sensitivity and respect for the customs of
the people.” They had to focus on the dignity of Iraqis, which was being
trampled daily: Iraqis had lived under a barbarous regime; the war with Iran
had killed hundreds of thousands; they had suffered years of devastating
sanctions; their government had been overthrown by outsiders; and now, in
“one of the most humiliating periods in the history of this people,” they
had almost no say on how they were being ruled.
"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however
objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal
means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions."
"So I put this [flag on my lapel] as a modest riposte to
men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of
Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they
don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the
coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash). I put it on to
remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of
Baghdad what bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to
the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that
war -- except in self-defense -- is a failure of moral imagination,
political nerve, and diplomatic skill. Come to think of it, standing up to
your government can mean standing up for your country. " "The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?" From John Brady Kiesling's Letter of Resignation to Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2/27/03.
This is Jimmy’s road where Jimmy liked to play. The End of an Innocence that never was.. Familiar, Haunting Words, 3/20/2003 Bush's War For Reelection: Iraq, the White House, and the People by James Moore
Intelligence Matters, by Senator Bill Graham, 9/2004, Random House,
Inc.
"Deserter: Bush's War on the Military and His Past, by Ian Williams," 8/04
"Secrets
and Lies: Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Collapse of American Power in the
Middle East", by Dilio Hiro, 12/2003 More than one million Iraqis dead since 2003 invasion: study, 1/2008 See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq) Iraq Invasion Radicalized Saudi Fighters, 9/18/2005 UN Rights Expert Charges US Using Food Access as Military Tactic , 3/31/2005 Remembering All Those Arguments Made 1,500 Deaths Ago, 3/11/2005 Iraqi Insurgency Growing Larger, More Effective, 1/22/05 Coble suggests pullout in Iraq, 1/9/2005
US Failed to
Honestly Assess Iraq Threat - Report by Carol Giacomo, 12/23/2004
2 C.I.A. Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's Path, 12/7/2004 The Final Judgment: Bush and Blair's Case for War is Demolished, 10/07/2004 Iraq War was Illegal and Breached UN Charter, Says Annan, 9/04 Group Offers Bush Bleak Iraq Assessment, 9/04 A Secure America in a Secure World, 9/2004 Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser, 9/11/2004 White House Blocked Probe of Sept. 11-Saudi Link: Top US Senator Iraqi Teens Abused at Abu Ghraib, Report Finds, 8/24/2004 Washington Accused of Ignoring Nuclear Terror Threat, 8/22/04 The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story- Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often Didn't Make Front Page Pre-9-11 Intelligence Underpinning US Terror Alert, 8/03/04 Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction, 7/04 9/11 Commission Sticks By Its Iraq, Al Qaida Findings, 7/04 Rumsfeld Gave Go-Ahead for Abu Ghraib Tactics, says General In Charge- 7/04 Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, 8/04 Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire, 7/04 Republican Senator Rips Bush on Iraq Strategy: Hagel says war hurt U.S. in terror battle, 6/04 Iraq Regime Change a Sham, Say Mideast Experts, 6/04 Advocates of War Now Profit From Iraq's Reconstruction 9/11 Panel Disputes Iraq Link to Attacks, 6/16/04 Retired officials say Bush has made U.S. isolated, distrusted, 6/16/04 Interrogation abuses were 'approved at highest levels, 6/13/04' Bush Knew About Leak of CIA Operative's Name, 6/3/04 New Prison Images Emerge: Graphic Photos May Be More Evidence of Abuse, 5/6/04 Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission, 4/8/2004 Blix: Iraq Worse Off Now Than With Saddam, 4/6/04
Blix: Iraq War
Was Illegal: Blair's defense is bogus, The Ultimate Betrayal- Howard Zinn, 4/2004 Tutu Tells Blair: Apologize for 'Immoral' War , 2/16/2004
US Officials
Knew in May Iraq Possessed No WMD, 2/1/04 Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq, 1/23/04 CIA Officers Warn of Iraq Civil War, Contradicting Bush's Optimism, 1/22/04 Dude, Where's My Country? - Soldier's Letters Bush's Iraq Visit a Pre-Election PR Stunt, 11/28/03 "The President Ought to be Ashamed," 11/21/03" US-led occupation brings frontline against al-Qaeda to Iraq: analyst, 9/6/03 Ex-Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Policy Number of Wounded in Action on Rise by Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, 9/2/03 Pentagon: U.S. Facing 'Guerrilla-Type' War, 7/16/2003 Lies, Damned Lies And Military Intelligence By William S. Lind, June 11, 2003 US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal' by Neil Mackay, 3/30/03 PNAC's Present Dangers As a Blueprint for Bush Doctrine "Confronting Iraq: Might Doesn't Make Right," by Desmond Tutu and Ian Urbina Carter decries unilateral war on Iraq: Former president says invasion to topple Saddam unjust New York Times Op-Ed: Saying No To War 2/26/03, letter by Coleen Rowley, Special Agent, Minneapolis to FBI Director Robert Mueller. IPS Releases Report on U.S. Arm-twisting Over Iraq War
U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of
War' by Felicity Barringer, New York Times, 2/27/03 Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage', 2/20/03 World Diplomats Berate America for Rush to Attack, 2/19/03 CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details' Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act Is Iraq in substantial and material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441? Bush Administration Foreign Policy in Korea: AWOL Iraq: What is the Debate Truly About? Byrd Pleads to American People U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- The Congressional Draft Resolution on Iraq The Troubling New Face of America U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- Commentary The Middle East : U.S. Foreign Policy at its Worst The Bush Administration: Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
"We’re in the midst of a somewhat
muted arms race, not with the Soviet Union but with the rest
of the world. We’re busily trying to fabricate enemies. We
shift from the North Koreans, and then we’re engaging with
Iraq and Iran again, and then we take a shot at Libya. We
wait for any of these people to raise their heads up and
we’re ready to go against them. This means nuclear weapons.
We had 600 warheads in the Gulf during the Iraq War, and if
American troops would have died there in considerable
numbers, we would’ve used those warheads. That’s why they
were there."
1996 Interview with Phillip Berrigan by Matthew Rothschild,
The Progressive. According to Keith Pavlischek in his paper, "Just and Unjust War in the Terrorist Age," Jus ad bellum requires that before war there must be legitimate authority, just cause and right intention. Other criteria include: Is there a reasonable chance for success? Will the overall good exceed the harm done (proportionality)? Have other means to redress been attempted (last resort)? Can peace among combatants be achieved? (the end of peace)? With regards to an Iraqi War, is there legitimate
authority- right authority related to the political good of order?
Since the Iraq War will contravene the United Nations Security
Council- one of the bodies entrusted with the maintenance of
international law the answer is NO. Further, almost every nation in
the world, except The U.S. and Great Britain, opposes the war. Even in
Great Britain, the opposition to the war is so deep and widespread, it
may topple the government of Tony Blair. Is there right intention? Some have questioned whether U.S. and Great Britain are more motivated by the pursuit of cheap oil rather than a free Iraq and/or are unduly influenced by the Israeli lobby. It does not help that the Bush cabinet is dominated by oil industry executives and that it has shown a clear tilt towards Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Administration harkens back to its chief motivation being to counter the terrorist/al-Qaida threat posed by Iraq- however there is no credible evidence that Iraq poses such a threat. So what is the true U.S. intention? The answer is quite clear- regime change (in contravention of International Law)- and why? Because Iraq may pose a threat in the future- not because of any present danger. Should this be considered right intention? Again, the answer is NO. Preventive War is in direct contravention of International Law. Also, the so-called democratic domino effect touted the President, Wolfowitz, Perle and others is discounted by Bush's own state department. Is there a reasonable chance of success? How is success is defined? If it is defined as regime change- the answer is a likely yes. This begs the question of whether the aim itself is just and based on the above the answer is NO. Is the response of war proportional to the threat posed- Will the overall good exceed the harm done? It is probable, but by no means assured, that U.S. military casualties will be relatively low. However, it is unclear if Iraq has sleeper cells in the U.S. that could pose a threat to U.S. citizens. It is also unclear whether U.S. military action will encourage, not discourage terrorist acts against U.S. citizens. It is likely that Iraq will suffer a terrible loss of human life, both through saturation bombing, invasion and infrastructure collapse. The same may apply to our regional allies. Given that there is no present threat posed by Iraq, a U.S. military invasion of Iraq is NOT proportional- the harm done is likely to exceed the the overall good achieved. Finally, UNMOVIC is reporting increased Iraq cooperation and compliance with the letter and intent of 1441. Nor does 1441 preclude surgical military strikes if needed. Nor does it preclude development of a more precisely defined response mechanism to Iraqi violations, including the option of graded military response. It is apparent that not all means have been exhausted to ensure that Iraq is and/or stays free of WMD. Therefore, the answer to whether all means to redress a possible harm have been attempted is NO. Many Americans, including former President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Jimmy Carter, agree with the essentials of the above analysis as does most of the rest of the world, including our traditional allies- France, Germany and Russia. If, as is the case, a large number of U.S. citizens perceive this war as unjust- what does this auger for our perception overseas? To the potential of future recruits for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups? Indeed, many in the world now perceive the United States as a bigger threat to world peace and stability than Iraq. Finally to suggest that French intransigence is the root of our difficulties at the U.N. is absurd. France, Germany and Russia are reflecting, not shaping world public opinion. In fact, it has been Pentagon planning, not diplomacy that has set the U.S. agenda on Iraq. Finally, what is probably in the mind of some U.S.
foreign policy planners is the
amassing 200,000 troops for war and failing to wage war- and the
damage this may cause to American credibility and the weakness it
implies. However, I would argue otherwise. Force is not precluded in
the Fall if Iraq fails to fully comply with 1441. By then it will be
clearer what the regime's true intentions are. An aggressive
inspections regime is likely at a minimum to stymie any WMD program-
if in fact one exists. However, entering a war to maintain the
perception (and not reality) of U.S. credibility is a bad mistake,
similar to the one made in Vietnam. CIA 'sabotaged inspections and hid weapons details' Senior democrats have accused the CIA of
sabotaging weapons inspections in Iraq by refusing to co-operate fully
with the UN and withholding crucial information about Saddam Hussein's
arsenal.
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences, by US
Senator Robert Byrd Justice Dept. Drafts Sweeping Expansion of Anti-Terrorism Act "The Bush Administration is preparing a bold, comprehensive sequel to the USA Patriot Act passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, which will give the government broad, sweeping new powers to increase domestic intelligence-gathering, surveillance and law enforcement prerogatives, and simultaneously decrease judicial review and public access to information. The Center for Public Integrity has obtained a draft, dated January 9, 2003, of this previously undisclosed legislation and is making it available in full text," Center for Public Integrity," 2/7/03. See also; Whitely Strieber's Journal, dated 2/10/03 on the so-called, "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," & MEDIA ADVISORY: Muted Response to Ashcroft's Sneak Attack on Liberties, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 2/1203.
Is Iraq in substantial and material breach of UN Security Council Resolution 1441? The basis of this
determination is contained within the resolution itself. Further this
determination is to be made by the Security Council, not any one
member state. The criteria are: (2) Has Iraq provided UNMOVIC and IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access to records, facilities, scientists, etc. ? (3) Has Iraq taken any hostile acts against UN or IAEA personnel? Based on news reports, Item (1) is subject to interpretation, however it appears Iraq must more fully disclose. Again, based on news reports, Iraq has fully complied with items (2) and (3). There have been unconfirmed reports of intimidation of Iraqi scientists and their families, however I have not heard this accusation from UNMOVIC or IAEA. The US has painted itself into a box. The administration knew it was unlikely that Iraq would proactively and enthusiastically disclose all of its weapon's systems, but hoped to garner world support for its actions through the UN. The world for its part, never expected Iraq to enthusiastically comply (even at the point of a gun), but hoped that the combination of inspections and disclosure would provide a better understanding of Iraq's WMD capabilities. Clearly it is subject to interpretation whether Iraq is in substantial material breach of 1441, as evidenced by the French, Russian and German counter positions. The U.S. has almost 100,000 troops in the Persian Gulf. Failure to use these troops against Iraq may be perceived as weakness by potential U.S. enemies. Further, U.S. threats to Hussein's very survival make him even more dangerous both before and after the start of an attack. On the other hand, the case for an invasion of Iraq is weak and the actual invasion/attempted regime change fraught with risks and the potential for substantial military and civilian casualties. Going to war for oil is immoral. Continued economic and political dependence on oil is unsustainable and destructive to the planet. What is needed is constructive engagement with Iraq
and our allies. The key tenets of this approach include:
Spurning South Korean President Kim Dae Jung
(2000 Nobel Peace prize winner) in 3/2002 because of his sunshine
policy towards the North; Failing to talk to the North Koreans for two
years in a policy of dis-engagement; "Axis of
Evil" threats;
Discussions with South Korean leaders about invasion of the North;
Oblique threats by the Secretary of Defense of a two front war with
Iraq and Korea; Remilitarization of Japan; Threatening remarks by the
President against Kim Jong Il tantamount to warmongering; Open splits
among Administration foreign policy decision-makers regarding Korean,
Middle East and Iraq policy; A complete failure to understand the
psychology, cultural history and motivations of North Korean leaders;
The possibility of a dramatic proliferation of nuclear weapons in the
region....An almost endless stream of dangerous and inept policy
actions by the Bush Administration contributing to a foreign policy
debacle and a pathetic display of brinkmanship by both sides. Joe Wilson makes a strong case for what he terms "muscular [disarmament] enforcement," as opposed to invasion and "decapitation" of the Iraqi regime. Ambassador Wilson dispels much of the Administration rhetoric, including the notion that the Iraqi people will welcome American "liberators;" that a post Saddam Iraq will be easy to govern; that arms inspections will be ineffective unless Iraq "rolls over" to inspectors/provides full disclosure; and that Saddam is irrational and therefore impossible to contain. Ambassador Wilson also believes that an Iraq war will increase, not decrease regional and global terrorism. Notwithstanding the above, reports are
streaming in around the World that the United States may decide
to invade Iraq in late January or early February- regardless of
opposition from the U.N. security council or UNMOVIC. Whether under
these circumstances, the U.S. will have the support of Great Britain,
Australia, etc. is unclear. My fervent hope is that the above conclusions are incorrect and that reasonable Iraqi compliance with UNMOVIC and U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, will head off war. In this case, the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf will play a positive role in inducing Saddam Hussein to comply with inspectors and further disclose WMD. Finally, the definition of reasonable needs to be left to the body that promulgated 1441- the U.N. Security Council, of which the United States in one of 15 members. See also: Drift Toward War Revives Nightmare of Vietnam: Policymakers preferred their wishful thinking to sound analysis, by Ray McGovern,, Charlotte Observer, 1/03/2002.
The Iraq debate has been clouded with glittering generalities, confusion of fact and opinion, suspect analogies to past events, poor issue definition, conflicting and shifting positions, political infighting, etc. The President's position is that if Iraq possesses WMD, especially nuclear weapons, it will find a way to use them to further break containment, destabilize the Middle East and pose a threat to the security of the United States directly or through terrorist proxies. The Administration believes that the Iraqi government is capable of great miscalculation and irrational behavior as demonstrated by its invasion of Iran and Kuwait, attempted assassination of the elder Bush, etc. The Iraqi regime's abysmal human rights record is used to further evidence the danger it poses to all peoples. See: "Saddam Hussein: Crimes & Human Rights Abuses," by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London. The sum total of the above invites comparisons with Hitler's and Stalin's governments- both of whom were threats to world peace and directly responsible for millions of needless deaths and untold human tragedies. Further, it appears unlikely Saddam's regime can be overthrown from within. Given the above, the Administration considers a conflict with Iraq inevitable and wants to engage now, while Saddam's WMD capabilities and military are relatively weak. However, the Administration admits that while a successful U.S. invasion of Iraq may be swift there is a risk of significant military and civilian casualties. Opposition to the Administration is two-fold. Some agree with the above analysis, but disagree as
to strategy and tactics. Others assert that Iraq's possession of WMD
does not guarantee its use. The former group is encouraging the
Administration to use the UN for (1) building a military
coalition in the event Iraq fails to disarm and (2) constructing a
post Saddam Iraqi regime in the aftermath of war. Those who hold the later view will not back
UN resolutions with military
action, unless Iraq engages in or threatens overt military action. This group
questions whether there are legitimate reasons why Iraq is being singled out and whether it poses an
immediate threat. They emphasize the potential for large civilian
casualties, refugees, displacement and a major humanitarian crisis.
For example, since 1991
as a result of UN economic sanctions, over 500,000 Iraqi children have
died as a result of epidemics and famine. See also:
Medact
report: "Collateral Damage, the health and environmental costs of war
on Iraq." &
Voices in the
Wilderness: a campaign to end the economic sanctions against the
people of Iraq." The Administration has not convinced me that there is not a serious risk of large numbers of civilian and military casualties. What preparations are being made in the region to protect our Arab and Israeli allies and the Iraqi people against Saddam's use of chemical and biological weapons? How can Saddam's regime be overthrown without "hand to hand" combat in Baghdad and the potential for a large number of military and civilian causalities? Is our military adequately prepared for such combat? Will our allies contribute the military and economic support essential for the operation's quick success? Will they militarily and economically assist in building a post Saddam regime? I believe the American people's support for an operation will be weak if it proves lengthy and/or costly in lives and dollars. The ramifications of an aborted operation are almost too frightening to contemplate. All of these considerations bode for caution and use of a variety of economic, diplomatic and as a last resort, military means, to achieve the objective of Iraqi disarmament. Finally, while Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld's analogy between the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Iraqi
situation is weak, it should be pointed out that US intelligence never
located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during
the crisis. Only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42
medium-range ballistic missiles were photographed by U.S. intelligence
officials at the time. Further diplomacy, a U.S. pledge not to
invade Cuba and a quid pro quo in
Turkey, not military action are what averted nuclear
catastrophe.
See
National Security Archive: Havana Conference on Cuban Missile Crisis,
10/11/02. &
"Projection on Fall Of Hussein Disputed," by Thomas E. Ricks,
Washington Post, 12/18/02 Byrd Pleads to American People "Voice or no voice, the people can always be
brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same in any country." U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- The Congressional Draft Resolution on Iraq After weeks of debate, the Bush administration has failed to adequately and coherently address significant questions regarding a U.S. led military operation against Iraq, see: "U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq- Commentary." The administration appears disunited, with key military leaders arguing against the administration's policy and key Bush administration civilian decision makers underestimating the military, political and economic risks/demands of an operation and subsequent nation building effort. One key unanswered question is why the administration didn't make its' case before the United Nations, six months or even a year ago, given the President's oft mentioned comment that "time is ticking" on a UN inspections/sanction resolution. Further the administration has politicized the issue, perhaps hoping that if the Democratic Senate resists the resolution, it will be their undoing- in effect putting the same type of time squeeze on the U.S. Congress that the administration has placed on the United Nations. Therefore I have concluded that at this
time it is unwise for the Congress to grant the Executive branch any
authority tantamount to a declaration of war against Iraq. Finally, the debate over preemption has been so
muddied by the administration that it has even alarmed our allies and
former American Presidents and Secretaries of State. Therefore it is
incumbent on the administration to clarify its position and the
Senate's responsibility to understand and critique what is
perceived as a major doctrinal shift in American foreign policy. Quoting from a September 5, 2002 Washington Post article, former President Jimmy Carter, Chairman of the Carter Center and a Nobel Prize Laureate in Peace writes: "Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process -- largely without definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration)." "Formerly admired almost universally as the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life." "While the president has reserved judgment, the American people are inundated almost daily with claims from the vice president and other top officials that we face a devastating threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support from any allies." We cannot ignore the development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq is not the answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary of state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this goal as a desirable option. "We have thrown down
counterproductive gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S.
commitments to laboriously negotiated international accords." Whatever the merits of former President Carter's views (and I believe they have merit (see: "U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq Commentary," "September 11th and its Aftermath/Civil Liberties at Stake," "The Middle East: U.S. Foreign Policy at its' Worst," "The Bush Administration: Lowering the Nuclear Threshold," "Global Warming" and "Bush Whitehouse Weakens Clean Air Act"), what can the U.S. expect from world opinion if a former American President has such strong foreign policy, ethical and moral concerns? Can U.S. foreign policy be effective without support, at the very minimum, from our traditional allies in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa and Asia? See: Pew Research Center report: What the World Thinks in 2002: How Global Publics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America
The foreign policy debate over Iraq brings into sharp focus
the need for more discussion at home and abroad that centers on
addressing key
questions including: How will the peoples and governments of the world and the region perceive and react (short and long term) to US unilateral (versus international multilateral) preemptive military action against Iraq? What effects will military action against Iraq have on the "war on terrorism," particularly the level of intelligence cooperation from regional and international partners and/or allies that may be opposed to unilateral US action? Is Iraq in fact a terrorist threat? See: the section from the Whitehouse report, A Decade of Deception and Defiance entitled "Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism," versus the perspective from Scott Ritter's speech to the Iraqi Parliament, "Ex-UN weapons inspector addresses Iraqi parliament, urges inspectors' return." What are the foreign policy implications of an
invasion of Iraq? Is it the
aim of US foreign policy to invade and topple any government that opposes its
policies, is geopolitically significant, militarily vulnerable,
represses its own people and may possess and/or is in the process of developing WMD?
Does the United States have the
legal justification, let alone the
military/economic means and political will to affect such a policy?
President Bush has defined Iraq, Iran and North Korea as part of the
"Axis of Evil," drawing an analogy with the Axis powers during WWII.
Are Iran and North Korea next in the US plans? Are the threats to be
addressed concurrently? Does lumping them together in this way
suggest that the method of dealing with these nations will be similar?
Besides these three nations, what other nations and groups pose
significant threats, now and in the near to mid-term? What, for
example, would be the US response if Musharraf's government in
Pakistan was overthrown by an extremist group? See Newsweek 8/19
article by Roy Gutman and John Berry,
"Beyond Baghdad:
Expanding Target List- Washington looks at overhauling the Islamic and
Arab world."
"The Bush Administration's Mid-East policy has consisted of stop and go/contradictory measures that have contributed to regional instability... The Administration's infighting and public ineptness, emboldens extremists on both sides of the conflict." |
