My take on the Iraq Question......cheers, rick
Iraq: Why Aren't We Asking The Right Questions? Richard Forno 9 October 2002 Perhaps, for the Bush Family, dealing with Iraq has become a sort of family tradition that brings everyone together for the holidays. Either that, or it's primarily interested in how quickly American oil firms can establish operations within Iraq after Saddam Hussein is gone. Either way, I'm disturbed by an Administration that appears desperate to find some way - any way - to justify major action against Iraq. More sinister is the apparent lack of public debate on the issue, a situation perpetuated by an American press more interested in making money by blindly endorsing the government's position than serving as a responsible servant of the public interest. It almost seems like a cassis belli du jour - depending on the weather and political climate in Washington on any given day, we're told that war is necessary and justified to: force a regime change; prevent Iraq from building or using weapons of mass destruction; respond to Iraq's violation of human rights laws; punish Iraq for its flagrant disregard of international sanctions; help the UN maintain its legitimacy as the instrument of the 'international community'; or eliminate Iraq as a potential supporter of al-Qaeda and terrorism. The winds of change, like the weather, shift quickly here in Washington, don't they? With the exception of the alleged - and still dubious - Iraqi links to al-Qaeda, the schmorgasboard of reasons outlined by the Administration to move against Iraq are not new; most have been around for a decade or more. In fact, a recently-released CIA report says that while Iraq may have chemical and biological weapons, they're either two years or twenty years away from having a functioning nuclear weapon, depending on various conditions. Note that either time frame is far after the November 2002 elections here, not before. Making the claim that Iraq should be punished for violating UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions sure sounds nice, but what's good for the goose also must be good for the gander. Will we endorse pre-emptive intervention in Turkey, Israel, and other countries to punish them for breaking UNSC resolutions as well? Probably not, because neither sits atop massive oil reserves like Iraq and, unlike Iraq, both have a very strong lobbying base in this country. Given the narrow margins separating control of both houses of Congress, it's natural that political conspiracy theories quickly materialized regarding the sudden 'threat' posed by Iraq presented to the public so close to elections, particularly after hearing Bush strategist Karl Rove say publicly earlier this year that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." He kept his word, too - the Administration waited until September to name Saddam Hussein as Public Enemy Number One. That's not surprising, given that Osama Bin Laden has been so darn elusive - he's rarely mentioned by the Administration these days - something that might mean lowered public opinion polls for the President (and his party) going into elections. Perhaps politics truly are involved here. It's also interesting to see that the same rules of engagement drafted by the Administration to govern it's "war on terror" are being used at home for domestic purposes; namely, if you're not one hundred percent behind the President (or his policies) you are against him and against America, thus becoming his enemy, countered if not in word, then by deed through traditional political actions such as accusations or good old fashioned finger-pointing. Anyone caught on the opposite side could be branded 'unpatriotic' - not a good thing with elections right around the corner, even if you're speaking your views and not your party's. Thus, going into elections, it's understandable how the Iraq question could be exploited by both parties and the Administration to score points on the domestic front, and possibly gain (or loose) control of some or all of Congress as a result. Naturally, the pundits speak, politicians debate, and fiery rhetoric flies all around Washington and the media. It all makes a very convincing cover story, but nobody's talking about the real reasons here. If indeed serious about military action in Iraq, the Administration's rush to war is predicated not on the November elections - as many believe - but likely on the concerns expressed by Pentagon planners associated with deploying troops in the region and then engaging Iraq before the brutal summer weather arrives in the Middle East in early April. Therefore, to beat the heat, most major ground operations in Iraq must be completed by the middle of March. Obtaining a supportive congressional resolution sooner rather than later also coincides nicely with any forthcoming UNSC resolution authorizing force against Iraq, something currently expected in late October. Assuming the Administration waits for and receives the UNSC resolution, this schedule would provide the Pentagon adequate lead time to begin mustering troops and equipment for a late-January/early-February offensive when the weather is conducive to ground combat in a desert environment. Otherwise, the Administration has to wait until late fall 2003 to attack, meaning it has to sustain whatever public support and interest it has on the Iraq Question for much longer than it would like. This policy albatross would overshadow its entire agenda for the year and make prolonged public debate and critical analysis on the issue inevitable, and quite possibly detract from the current support it enjoys for its stated position that Iraq must be dealt with now, instead of later. Fortunately, the Bush Administration can count on America's Fourth Estate - the mainstream news media - to carry its message for as long as necessary to keep the public interested; a task made easier given the media's consolidation in recent years and the ongoing reluctance of mainstream news organizations since September 11 to publish dissenting opinions or analysis on policy items related to national security. Perhaps afraid of being branded 'unpatriotic' by the Attorney General, the American news media has become practically one-sided, and avoided its self-proclaimed duties; namely, serving as a forum to provide critical analysis, coverage of policy debates, and asking the tough questions that must be answered for the public's interest. No, the press is seemingly content to rebroadcast the 'party line' talking points of the Administration - whatever they might be during a given day's news cycle. After all, today's mainstream media entities are committed to making money, not educating the public. (Perish the thought!) If this seems incredible, consider that the major networks decided to broadcast regular prime-time entertainment programming instead of President Bush's "Why Iraq" cheerleading speech from Cincinnati on October 7. Yes, "Drew Carey" and "Fear Factor" are more important than national security. And we wonder why the world thinks Americans are ignorant? If the press did ask the tough questions and conduct its own research, instead of relying on flashy graphics, sensational scoops, and extremist pundits to coax, cajole, and coerce public opinion, it might wonder about the escalating tension between India and Pakistan in the decades-old Kashmir conflict and how it might impact our pending war with Iraq. Between them, about a million troops are stationed in Kashmir, and both nations recently test-fired nuclear-capable missiles in their latest round of mutual saber-rattling. What if, as the United States prepares to enter Iraq preemptively, the Kashmir situation further deteriorates, and (quite likely) results in a local nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan? As the world's remaining superpower - and the only country capable of responding to the massive humanitarian emergency that would ensue - what would that mean for the Pentagon's plans, capabilities, or resources available for Iraq? The media's vaunted analysts never mention it, and probably won't, until it happens. You'd never know from the mainstream media that Iraq's bioweapons program isn't a recent development - the United States actually helped Iraq develop its bioweapons program and supported Hussein's war with Iran during the 1980s. Yet the media's overlooked this historical - if not uncomfortable - American truth, choosing instead to show graphics depicting the range of Iraqi Scud missiles and how American troops can protect themselves against missile attack. Besides, we can't admit our role in helping create this Frankenstein monster we're now trying to destroy. That's not good for the war effort, and might appear unpatriotic to some. On the issue of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, nobody seems to remember that in 1981, Israel preemptively destroyed Iraq's new nuclear power plant at Osirik. If indeed Iraq's nuclear program presents the immediate threat to the world the Administration claims it does, Israel would've eliminated the threat already under its own rules of national self-defense. Here, we don't need to get involved, Israel's more than willing and able to handle this themselves! Perhaps "learning from history" is indeed a thing of the past; or at the very least uncomfortable, and therefore must be kept from public knowledge, especially during a prelude to war. Should we attack Iraq and the battle move into the cities and away from the over-hyped effectiveness of aircraft-launched "precision weapons" and other long-range weaponry used during DESERT STORM - which is the most likely scenario - there undoubtedly will be American casualties. Yet, instead of discussing it, the press replays two-year-old Pentagon video of Iraqi air defense systems attacking allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone, obviously making the video-based case to support war at all costs. In other words, simply rebroadcast whatever they're asked to by the Administration in support of their agenda. (Besides, it's 'fresh' action-packed wartime footage that gets viewer attention and keeps the advertisers happy.) Most importantly, the media might start asking the Administration what its plans are for a post-Hussein Iraq. How long are we expecting to be there? What, specifically, is America's criteria to declare 'mission accomplished'? On this question, the silence from the Administration is deafening. Sadly, only a few politicians and media sources are asking the right questions, or feel comfortable taking anything less than a conciliatory, perhaps politically motivated, position to the Administration in its charge towards Baghdad. Worse is the media's inability - both because of corporate consolidations and editorial decisions - to publish or support anything but items supporting the Administration's plans. When covering the Administration's increasing tempo on their oil drums of war, the media - as the vaunted 'guardians of democracy' - must have the fortitude to offer objective coverage and critical analysis of the various issues, interests, and factors involved in the Iraq Question, and thus help dispel its current image as the unelected spokespersons of the federal government. It's not 'unpatriotic' to discuss publicly our differences of opinion regarding national policies; it's part of what being American is all about, and our patriotic duty. And, if there's proof that Iraq is a clear and present danger to the United States, the Administration must present it publicly, much like JFK did during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The material presented must be concrete and tangible, not full of vague statements, gloomy generalizations, repeated history lessons, and panicked what-ifs. Give the world, and American people, the tangible information necessary to form their own opinions on the matter. "Just trust us" is not a valid reason to go to war, and the American public needs to know why. 'Anonymous' contributed to this article. Richard Forno is a security analyst in the Washington, DC area. Contact him at [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # # # # # # # # # # (c) 2002 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce in whole/part with appropriate credit. -- You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit www.infowarrior.org/lists for list information or to unsubscribe. This message may be redistributed freely in its entirety.
