|
CounterPunch
November
8, 2002
War Cries: Weapons
of Mass Distraction ... Or Something Worse?
by BRIAN J. FOLEY
Many Americans have at one time or another dismissed
President Bush's talk of conquering Iraq as a "weapon of
mass distraction." Even if Bush's war cries are just talk,
his words have had far-reaching effects.
Certainly, Bush has much to distract
us from. The budget deficit. His administration's ties to Enron.
His NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY blueprint to dominate the world
by military force. Shredding the anti ballistic missile defense
treaty. Blocking investigation into the security failures before
September 11. Saying No to the global warming treaty. Disappearing
civil liberties. Corporate scandals and 401(k) meltdowns.
And the War on Terrorism, which appears
about as successful as the War on Poverty. Last month, CIA Director
George Tenet warned Congress, "The threat environment we
find ourselves in today is as bad as it was last summer, the
summer before 9/11."
Bush's shoving us toward war with Iraq,
however, is not mere distraction from these failings. It's a
serious disruption, like shouting "fire" in a crowded
theater. According to the evidence, Iraq has no weapons that
seriously threaten us, is unlikely to obtain any, and is unlikely
to attack us.
Bush's bellicose talk has splintered
our government. Former Bush Sr. officials have publicly blasted
Bush Jr.'s plans. So have many generals. Civilians at the Pentagon
have created their own intelligence agency, because Donald Rumsfeld
and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, disagree with the CIA's assessment
that Iraq has no links to Al Qaeda.
Congress's agenda was upended. The forced,
rushed vote on Iraq preempted debate over many more pressing
issues during the run-up to midterm elections. One such issue
is how to deal with North Korea: Bush kept Pyongyang's revelations
about its nuclear program secret until only after Congress signed
and sealed its approval for him to use violence against Iraq.
Might Congress have voted differently if members knew yet another
war was possible? Might they have sought to delay their Iraq
vote and develop a coherent policy?
War talk has disrupted ordinary Americans'
lives, especially military reservists and National Guardsmen
who wonder if they'll be mobilized. Young men and their families
fear a draft. Those poised to fight worry that if they survive,
they might suffer the fate of thousands of Gulf War vets who
have succumbed to the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome.
The rest of us are riveted to the news.
Thousands of Americans have felt compelled to protest in Washington,
D.C., New York, San Francisco, Boston and other cities. Thousands
more have called, written or visited their elected representatives.
Many of these people had never petitioned or marched before.
Countless lives in other nations have
also been disrupted by President Bush's war talk. People know
death and destruction could easily spill over Iraq's borders.
And that their country could be next on Bush's blacklist.
Business has been disrupted, too -- the
stock market shudders, and the price of oil has risen steadily
with the fear that war will shrink supply. Many corporations
are scrambling to change forecasts and plans. Instability can
hamper growth and lead to recession.
Bush's war talk endangers our nation's
security. Turmoil and turf battles in our government can choke
the flow of information and thought. The talk has alienated foreign
allies, whose best efforts are crucial to preventing terror attacks
in the U.S. Many Arabs see themselves in the crosshairs of a
new crusade -- thousands could seek solace in fanaticism.
Moreover, many officials and experts
warn that by invading Iraq, we will increase the threat that
Saddam will unleash whatever weapons he does have. Even if we
don't invade, this persistent talk of war alone could provoke
terrorism. These horrors might be reasonable tradeoffs if it
were probable that Saddam would attack us without provocation.
But the evidence suggests otherwise.
The Bush Disruption reflects an enormous
abuse of presidential power. Bush is either irrationally scared
of Saddam, has a hidden agenda, or has used threats of war to
disrupt elections and solidify his power. Of course, presidents
should discuss how to address possible, future threats to our
security, but creating hysteria and pledging to wage a war that
is unwarranted is something altogether different.
And by pushing so hard without strong
evidence, Bush has jeopardized whether we will believe him if
he ever finds a genuine threat to our security.
Brian J. Foley
is a professor at Widener University School of Law in Wilmington,
Delaware. He can be reached at Brian.J.Foley@law.widener.edu.
Yesterday's
Features
Jeffrey St. Clair
Rockin'
the Pipeline:
Earthquakes and Alaska's Oil
Tom Stephens
The
Perils of LSD:
Lame Spineless Democrats
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Democrats
in the Aftermath:
Stand for Something!
Ben Tripp
Voting with Your Ass
Lorenzo Hagerty
To the
Barricades!
Wayne Madsen
Resistance!
Bernard Weiner
Inside
Karl Rove's Election Night Diary
Joanne Mariner
Guantanamo's
Geriatric Terrorists
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|