....LMB: "Cheney 25:17*"....

August 27, 2002

So Dick Cheney is laying down the law about Iraq. In a recent speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cheney argued that Saddam Hussein constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States, that "risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action" ("action" meaning "attack," of course), and that waiting to attack Hussein will just increase the chances that he will have nuclear weapons when the US does decide to attack.

Of course, the one thing he didn't do was provide the tiniest shred of proof that Iraq is a threat to the United States, let alone a "mortal" one that would destroy the nation.

He also tells the audience that he disagrees with grim predictions that an attack on Iraq would destabilize the region and impede the war on terrorism:

"Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits to the region. When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace. As for the reaction of the Arab "street," the Middle East expert Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra and Baghdad are "sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans." Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart. And our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced, just as it was following the liberation of Kuwait in 1991."

Cheney then stops his prognosticating, but I presume he would've gone on to talk about rainbows and kittens and gumdrops and beautiful fairy princesses and the children of the world holding hands, singing tra la la la la.

While major public figures are now speaking out against the war (like Brent Scowcroft and Norman Schwarzkopf), their opposition is fairly specific; if the Bush administration can "sell" the Iraqi threat to the American people, or come up with a battle plan that will incur fewer US casualties, then this opposition will lift. But the unreasonable rationale for attack is only one of my concerns. I'm afraid that a war on Iraq will kill many Iraqis, some Americans, and profoundly fuck up southern and central Asia.

Successfully deposing Saddam Hussein could cause a secession by the Kurds of northern Iraq, potentially inviting a civil war between the Turks and it's Kurdish population that would also want to secede (check this map). And since the US is an ally of Turkey, the US could get drawn into a Turkish civil war. The Shi'a Arabs in southern Iraq might also secede, or maintain their quasi-autonomous status. Shi'ites are generally more fundamentalist and militant than other Muslims, which could result in more religious terrorism in the region, and against the United States. On top of this chaos, the US is still trying to hold Afghanistan together, and does not seem to be that successful. Does the US really want to be an occupying force in two nations simultaneously?

I don't want to be all doom and gloom here. The ideal outcome would be one where Saddam Hussein was overthrown, and a peaceful democratic coalition government were put in its place with little need for US involvement. However, I'm not an optimist. I feel it more likely that the US would occupy Iraq for an extended period of time, and give control over the country to any Iraqi who would sign lucrative oil deals with US petroleum companies, and generally carry out the US' will. Either the US could tie the nation together through brute force, or have it's little puppet regime in Baghdad while the rest of the country struggles on its own.

I'm planning on writing a Stray Bulletins article summing up the reasons I think this war on Iraq is a bad idea, including an examination of the war hawks' rationale. But for the most part, I've given up on that line of questioning. I don't think that the Bush administration is actually worried about Saddam Hussein attacking the US with WMD. I think that is a fictional cover story they have created to distract us all. No one with any knowledge of Iraq is concerned about these weapons, including the CIA and FBI. Unless Bush and Rumsfeld have access to intelligence that the CIA can't access, there's no good reason to fear these weapons.

So what is the real reason that the US is attacking Iraq? I've heard many explanations: to gain Republican political advantage for the November Congressional elections; to get Iraq's oil; because Israel wants us to; to break the spirit of the "Islamists"; to demonstrate American strength; to distract everyone from the failures of the war on terrorism; as a personal vendetta by W. to avenge his father; or because the White House is filled with fucking loonies. Bush & co. want this war, and they'll make up any old cover story to get it.

Unfortunately, Bush has an awful lot riding on this war. After so much tough talk and bluster, he would look very foolish if he were forced to back down. So he might not, despite the opposition of nearly every nation on Earth, despite the lack of public support, despite the lack of support from his own political party, despite the breach of international law, despite the carnage it will cause.

Now I'll leave you with three sound clips I really think you should listen to.

In 1964, Congress voted on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that would authorize the president to use military force in Vietnam. At the time, the government claimed that US ships had been attacked by Vietnamese ships, and that our nation needed to retaliate. Congress lined up to vote their support.

Two senators spoke out against this resolution, and the following are audio recordings of the fiesty Sen. Wayne Morse, who was one of the few Congressional voices of wisdom that preceded a bloody and terrible war. As the current White House demands similar unquestioning support for Congress in another complex war with only flimsy allegations as evidence, I think it's mandatory that we take a listen to these:

Clip 1
Clip 2
Clip 3