| http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=289 ''Bush's desire to attack Iraq'' Printed on Friday, May 24, 2002 @ 05:09:50 EDT By Keiler Hook YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States) (YellowTimes.org) – (YellowTimes.org) – What exactly is the legal basis for a war with Iraq? President Bush has tried to connect Iraq with the terrorists who attacked New York City and the Pentagon. The administration has admitted recently that there is no such connection. A massive investigation by the government failed to imply Saddam Hussein much to the dismay of the government. The resolution that Congress passed on September 14, 2001 gave President Bush wide range to "use all necessary and appropriate force against the Nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks." Further, the resolution allows Bush to use military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United Stares: by those who perpetuated the September 11 attacks." Iraq doesn’t apply to either of these resolutions. Iraq has not seriously threatened the United States; we have been the ones who are bombing Iraq, not the other way around. After finishing off Iraq, we’re rumored also to go after Syria, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. These are other countries that are not tied to the terrorist attacks on the United States. There is an apparent double standard applied to the war on terrorism. We keep stretching across the globe glaring and threatening countries we suspect of, well, for want of a better word, terrorism. Why isn’t the government paying attention to Scott Ritter, an arms inspector that left the government because he thought President Clinton was too lenient on the Iraqi’s? He wrote in the Boston Globe on March 9, 2000, that, "from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has in fact been disarmed. ... The chemical, biological, nuclear, and long-ranged missile programs that were a real threat in 1991, had by 1998 been destroyed or rendered harmless." Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, said recently that Saddam Hussein is building up weapons of mass destruction but the U.S. government has no proof of that. The UN’s Robert Butler said in July 1998, "if Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap." On the other hand, we do have proof of how China mistreats its citizens; arrests all political activists, bans public discourse; prohibits free press; threatens Taiwan; and terrorizes any dissident religious groups. The Chinese do have weapons of mass destruction. China is our ally because of the financial benefits we get from having China as a trading partner. Walmart, world dominating Walmart, would not be if not for the slave labor provided by the Chinese government to make products for Walmart that are sold to U.S. consumers at a huge discount. China, a huge trading partner, is also an ally in the war on terror. Pakistan is overrun with "terrorists"; everyone knows this, no one discusses it. Why is it not discussed? Simply because the war on terrorism is not as clear as the Bush administration has put it; Pakistan is an ally of ours in the war against certain terrorists, therefore Pakistan's terrorist activity will be overlooked. General Musharref is a dictator whose newly acquired faux title of president seems to cloud any real clear insight into this thug by either our administration or our press. President Bush has overlooked Musharref’s brutal prisons filled with political dissidents, now appropriately named terrorists. Is this the same President Bush who demanded that Fidel Castro of Cuba release all political dissidents? By this logic, President Bush is calling for President Castro to release Cuban terrorists from prison! Pakistani also has weapons of mass destruction. President Clinton’s sanctions against Pakistan for this exact reason was lifted by the Bush administration, because, yes, Musharref is a terrorist against the war on terror. The Bush administration props up a bully because of perceived economic and military advantages to us and, in doing so, we ignore Musharref’s ambitions for Kashmir, the territory in dispute between India and Pakistan. The general fights terrorism at home and encourages terrorist groups that launch attacks against India. Thirty people were killed, mostly women and children, in Jannu, a city in Kashmir, just this week. The terrorists wore army clothing; it was a slaughter. Saudi Arabia, our staunchest ally among the Arab nations, mainly because of our oil dependency, happened to be the spawning point of a majority of the Hijackers of 9/11; Osama bin Laden is also a Saudi. Saudis fought with the Taliban against Russia. Saudi Arabia is also the home of the Wahabbi sect of Islam that trains scores of would-be "terrorists." Doesn’t the Bush Doctrine state that "Nations that sponsor terrorism, or house terrorists operating freely within borders are in grave danger of invasion and destruction." Why does Saudi Arabia escape the brush or the taint of terrorism? Again, because Saudi Arabia has said they support our war on terrorism and, of course, they supply us amply with oil. President Bush’s father, George Bush the first, did not take out Hussein when he allegedly had a chance to do so. The group that was behind finishing off Hussein in the early 90’s is the same group that surrounds Bush the second. Richard Perle, the most voracious of this crew, heads the Defense Policy Board, a group of military intellectuals outside of the Pentagon that advise the Department of Defense. Perle has been given the name "The Prince of Darkness" because of his extremely hawkish views. If one dares question the intent of Mr. Perle, you are labeled either a traitor or a coward. Mr. Perle does not see the need to include other nations in this war; he is the true unilateralist. Other experts say that we cannot attack Iraq without the aid and acceptance of other Muslim nations. To this date none of our allies in the Middle East approve of our decision to make war on Iraq. It is clear that President Bush is going to declare war on Iraq. According to the Constitution, Congress is the body of government that declares war. However, Congress has relinquished this obligation since World War II. Congress must reclaim this responsibility from the executive branch. This will insure then that Congress debate whether this war is advantageous to our country. Questions to be discussed and answered would involve the replacement of Saddam Hussein; how to bring together the opposing exiled Iraqi’s; and the financial and political investment of an occupation force that will have to be put in place by us. And what of "collateral damage" if we go to war with Iraq? There will be thousands of civilian casualties. Iraq, a country of 24 million people, is poor. Their GNP is 1 percent of the United States’ GNP. The people have suffered 12 years of death and deprivation because of sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has not be damaged by these sanctions, but his people have. Colin Powell issued a statement in Reykjanik, Iceland on Tuesday, May 14, 2002, regarding the approval by the United Nations Security Council of Resolution 1409, which revises the export control system for Iraq. There is now a simple, expedited process for exporting civilian goods into the country. The statement was mainly approving the actions of the Security Council. However, Secretary Powell added this about Iraq, "the Iraqi regime represents a threat to its own people, its region, and the international community." On the same day rhetoric is increasing about our planned attack on Iraq. I would suggest to Congress that they take Secretary Powell’s warning seriously. Congress is obligated to find out if indeed Iraq represents a present threat to its own people, its region and the international community. And while they are at it they might as well take a look at China, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia to see if they present similar threats to their people and others. Russia, the Philippines, and all of the "stans" countries deserve Congress’s attention also. These countries all complain of terrorists in their midst. These countries have been known to kill dissidents, especially Muslims. Some could make a case that the ruling governments of these countries do represent threats to their own people, their region and the international community. It is up to Congress to take the responsibility of inquiry, investigation, research and scrutiny of all of the issues surrounding the declaration of war. That is their job and why they got elected. They should fully expect and receive the full support of the administration and the people. One of the theories of a Just War is the question: Is violence the last resort? Iraq has acquiesced in the last few months; they don’t want to be attacked by the United States. They reconciled with Kuwait and are making noises about allowing inspectors in again. The United Nations has expressed its disapproval of our plans to declare war along with almost every other nation except for Great Britain. The UN favors compromise and negotiation. We would do well to heed the rest of the world about this. Do we really want to add more turmoil to that part of the world that has suffered so much for so long? Let us make sure that war is the last resort. [Keiler Hook, a journalist from the Deep South in the United States, writes pieces mostly concerning either the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs"; both subjects capturing her passion and her talent. Keiler is a woman, a mother, an activist, and a journalist.] |
