By Tony Russell|
War with Iraq is inevitable-almost certainly within the next three weeks. Not because of anything Saddam Hussein has
done, has not done, or might do, but because the Bush administration is hell-bent on having a war.
It was disheartening, after Colin Powell's 90-minute speech laying out the administration's case for attacking Iraq, that the
few columnists who had raised some objections to the war-Richard Cohen and Mary McGrory being the most
prominent-immediately announced their conversion to the pro-war cause. Their columns appeared the day after the speech,
and would have had to have been written almost before Powell's image faded from the screen. One might have hoped that,
in a matter of such import, they would have taken time to investigate the claims made by Powell, and to reflect on the
consequences. One would have hoped for greater clarity on their part, and more steadfastness. What their conversion
demonstrates, however, is that the major media-like the administration-are now at almost total disconnect from the ordinary
citizens of the United States.
Examples of that disconnect are everywhere. Congressional offices have been inundated with calls, letters, and e-mails-in
many cases, we're told, running upwards of 90% against the war. But where are the Congressional voices opposing the
war? Robert Byrd, West Virginia's little giant, made one of the great speeches in Senate history on Wednesday, and one of
his bitter themes was the deadening silence in Congress. Polls show repeatedly that the public has not been persuaded that
this war is justified. We are seeing some of the largest demonstrations for peace in U.S. history-not in the balmy stirrings of
spring, but in the bitter cold of January and February-and they have gone almost unreported.
This isn't just a U.S. phenomenon. Tony Blair's eagerness to enter the fray is played up, while the British public's
skepticism is largely ignored. In country after country, opinion runs overwhelmingly against a U.S. attack, sometimes in the
80% to 90% disapproval range. Predictably, in both the U.S. and Britain, the governments are trumpeting new terrorist
threats and trying to frighten people into believing that somehow this war is intended to protect them-a cover story for an
unprecedented invasion of another nation.
The huge coverage of Powell's address, and the failure to balance it with a response, typifies the administration's effort to
propagandize its own people. It is as if a prosecutor were given an hour and a half to lay out the case against a defendant,
and then, with no opportunity for the defense to present its version of the situation, the case was sent straight to the jury. Is
that fair? No. Is the system rigged? Yes. For whatever it is worth, it is in venues not under the control of the powerful-the
Internet and the streets-that Colin Powell must be answered.
As a general, Powell was always an astute politician. As a politician, he is very much a general. He selected the most
favorable terrain for this battle for support. Powell's case was built principally around an attempt to persuade the U.N. that
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, has concealed them, and has not cooperated with U.N. weapons
inspectors. That is why the U.S. is going to attack him, he said, and the U.N. had best get behind the U.S., or risk being
But we need not, and should not, fight this battle on Powell's chosen ground. First, we need to be clear on the only
legitimate basis for a war: to defend oneself against the aggressor when one is attacked. That is the criterion in moral law as
well as in international law. Iraq has not attacked the United States, and it is difficult to imagine a set of circumstances where
it would be foolhardy enough to do so. The United States is the aggressor here, and the administration's talk of "preemptive
war" is simply a public relations ploy to mask the fact that they intend to launch a terrible war against a country that has done
nothing-I repeat, nothing-to us.
In fact, the church to which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney both claim allegiance, the United Methodist Church, has condemned
plans for an attack on Iraq on just these grounds, saying that they are "without any justification according to the teachings of
Christ." The general secretary of the Board of Church and Society said, "The Methodist Church is not pacifist, but rejects
war as a 'usual means of national policy.'" He goes on to say that Methodist scriptural doctrine specifies that war is to be "a
last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the
borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries
pleaded for our assistance, nor does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States." The church says
that all attempts to discuss this matter with the White House have been ignored.
The attacks of September 11 were carried out by 19 men. Fourteen of them were from Saudi Arabia. None of them were
from Iraq. Despite insinuations by the Bush administration, no link-I repeat, no link-has ever been found between Iraq and
the September 11 attack.
That in itself should be enough of an answer to Mr. Powell: the war is unjustified and immoral. The United States has
become the very things it accuses Iraq of being-a rogue nation, an aggressor, and an international menace.
This is the most basic and irrefutable objection to the administration's war. But there are powerful secondary objections as
well. One is that our own intelligence assessments say that Saddam Hussein is not a serious threat to the U.S., but that, if
attacked, he may use any means at his disposal to strike back. So the administration is making assertions counter to our own
intelligence assessments, and then deliberately choosing the most provocative and dangerous course.
Another is that the consequences of the invasion, in a volatile area of the globe, are so unpredictable. It's like tossing a
firecracker into a dynamite factory, and pretending you have everything under control. Will Israel become involved? Will
nuclear arms be used by someone? Will the European powers sit on their hands while we take over control of a large share
of the world's oil production? Will the Iraqi people, with their water supply destroyed, their medical system destroyed, their
housing destroyed, and their food distribution system destroyed, become an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe?
Nobody knows. The one certainty is that we will have further enflamed the hatred of Muslims all over the globe, and made
the world a more dangerous place for Americans.
Yet another objection is that we are simply asked to take on faith that the photographs and recordings Powell introduced are
what he claims they are. And, given what is at stake-a war and occupation that may take the lives of tens of thousands of
Iraqis, most of them women and children, and that will, over the long haul, drain as much as $2 trillion from the U.S.
economy-that is staking far too much on Powell's credibility. As one foreign editor put it, you could not, in a court of law,
convict a chicken thief on the kind of evidence Powell produced; and yet we have 150,000 U.S. troops in and around Iraq,
ready to create an unthinkable nightmare, justified on just that basis.
It is worth remembering that back in 1990, the first Gulf War was spurred on by two dramatic stories-one, that Iraq had
265,000 soldiers and 1,500 tanks poised on its border with Saudi Arabia, ready to launch an attack; and two, that Iraqi
soldiers had pulled babies out of their incubators in a hospital in Kuwait, and thrown them on the floor to die. Both stories
were lies. The "incubator babies" story was created by a U.S. advertising firm, Hill & Knowlton, under contract to drum up
war fever. The satellite photographs showing the Iraqi buildup on the Saudi border were fakes, a ruse discovered by a St.
Petersburg, Florida, reporter, who ordered satellite photos of the same area taken at the same time by a commercial satellite,
and found the area was devoid of Iraqi troops and tanks. The fake government satellite photos can't be examined; they are
still classified for "security reasons." Did our government-in the person of Colin Powell, as it happens, and George W.
Bush's father-spread lies to justify a war? Yes. Would they do it again? They just did.
Almost the entire body of evidence and photos that Powell laid out in his U.N. speech has fallen apart under scrutiny. There
is no Iraqi "poison factory and explosives training camp," and no European terrorist network linked to Baghdad, despite
Powell's assertions. The location of the camp, as given by Powell, is inaccurate. The buildings in the photograph are located
at Sargat, not Khurmal. Western journalists were given a tour of the camp on Saturday, after first being taken to Khurmal to
show them that no such camp existed there. The New York Times reported: "They found a wholly unimpressive place-a
small and largely undeveloped cluster of buildings…; the structures did not have plumbing and had only the limited electricity
supplied by a generator." Some "poison factory": no chemicals, no equipment, not even running water.
The terrorist mastermind, who is alleged to have set up the factory and the network, is not even in Iraq. French intelligence
and leaked British intelligence reports say that the man Powell referred to is "independent" of Al Qaeda and is "not under the
control" of Saddam Hussein.
Powell also referred listeners to a British intelligence dossier released on February 3, Iraq-its infrastructure of concealment,
deception and intimidation. The material was presented as the culmination of an intensive intelligence effort. Powell praised
the dossier as reinforcing American intelligence. It turns out, however, that the bulk of the dossier is material plagiarized from
three articles, one written by an American graduate student, and that some of the material is years old, actually describing the
buildup to the last Gulf War, more than ten years ago. Some of the material seems to have been copied straight from the
Internet. Such changes as were made were clearly intended to present the Iraqi regime as more menacing and sinister than
had appeared in the original.
Finally, with reference to the "weapons of mass destruction" Powell and Mr. Bush have constantly tried to terrify us with, one
need only go back to the Pentagon's own Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force Report of April, 2002, in which our
government pooh-poohed the idea that Iraq's chemical and biological warfare stocks could have caused any health damage
to Gulf War veterans because Iraqi manufacturing techniques were so poor and the resulting toxins so ineffective. In the
words of the report: "We believe Iraq was largely cooperative in its latest declarations because many of its residual munitions
were of little use-other than bolstering the credibility of Iraq's declaration-because of chemical agent degradation and leakage
As for Iraq's nuclear weapons capability, the head of the International Atomic Energy, Mohammed ElBaradei of Egypt, in his
recent report to the UN Security Council, said they had found no evidence of Iraqi concealment or restarting of the nuclear
program that was under way before the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and heaped praise on Iraq's cooperation with nuclear
inspectors. The claim that Saddam Hussein "recently" tried to get uranium from Africa appears to refer to an unfulfilled
request from Iraq to Niger back in 1981-82!
So that convincing presentation by the distinguished graying Secretary of State turns out to be-mostly lies, half-lies, and
damned lies. Nothing more than a propaganda effort to justify war, performed by one of the few administration figures who
had any credibility remaining. He just lost it.