Comments on a question concerning "Bush's War"

A friend asked me as question: what are your thoughts on Bush's War?

Interesting premise.

First, let me reject the title, "Bush's War." Was it called Clinton's War when he stopped racial cleansing in Bosnia?

Second, think of it this way: the basic question is "should Saddam have NBC weapons?"

My guess is that you will say no. Ok, then. He either has them or he does not, right?

If he has them, should we take them and stop him from using them (as he already has)? If he does not have them, a claim disabused by his own actions and the UN's records and statements in the past 12 years, should we give him time to acquire them?

========================

Most criticisms of the War on Terror/Iraq fall into one or more of three categories:

1 - It is a war for oil.

2 - The UN has not sanctioned military action/the US is going it alone.

3 - We are "rushing to war" without giving diplomacy a chance.

Let's start with the last part first:

3 - This Is Your Last Last Last Last Last Chance (from Opinionjournal.com)

· "Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998

· "Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998

· "Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998

· "The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002

· "Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003

There are others not listed here.

Quoted from OpinionJournal.com:

"Democrats Urge Bush Not to Rush to War." This is news? The administration's critics have been complaining of a "rush to war" for months. Just a few examples:

· "The Rush to War"--headline, The Nation, Aug. 7, 2002

· "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell . . . and his advisers have decided that they should focus international discussion on how Iraq would be governed after Mr. Hussein--not only in an effort to assure a democracy but as a way to outflank administration hawks and slow the rush to war."--New York Times, Aug. 16, 2002

· "Christian Leaders Urge U.S. to 'Stop Rush to War' With Iraq"--headline, United Methodist Church press release, Aug. 30, 2002

· "A Reckless Rush to War"--headline, editorial, The American Prospect, Sept. 25, 2002

· "We have not been told why . . . we must rush to war rather than pursuing other options."--Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), Sept. 30, 2002

· "We are rushing into war without fully discussing why."--Sen. Robert Byrd (D., W.Va.), Oct. 3, 2002

You get the idea. By the time the liberation of Iraq begins in earnest, perhaps a month from now, critics of the Bush administration will have spent at least six months complaining about the "rush to war." But half a year's preparation is no rush; it's more of a saunter. (In comparison, it was less than four weeks after Sept. 11 that the first bombs fell on Afghanistan.) . . .

"Rush to war," of course, has become a cliche'. A Google search turns up 6,570 pages containing the phrase and the word Iraq. "Rush to war" is not an argument; it is a slogan . . . .

2 - The UN has not sanctioned military action/the US is acting unilaterally.

What is the purpose of the UN weapons inspectors? Most people will say that it is to see if Saddam has prohibited weapons. Most people would be wrong.

If you look at the text of UN Resolution 1441, the inspector's job is to find proof that Iraq has destroyed the WMDs that is already admitted to having. They were to find, through the cooperation of the Iraqi government, the records and remains of the now-destroyed WMDs.

The fact that they have been unable to do so, due to the non-cooperation of Saddam and his followers, is enough to cause them to be "in material breach" according to 1441.

(This, of course, is in addition to being in breach of the previous *16* resolutions the UN has brought against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.)

". . . the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." And those consequences are . . . ?

As for our "going it alone":

Sixteen of 19 NATO nations and 34 countries in all back the U.S. policy toward Iraq, but on Fox News Sunday, much to the consternation of Brit Hume, the NPR duo of Mara Liasson and Juan Williams kept referring to the U.S. going it "alone," "isolating itself," and how "the United States is basically acting in a unilateral fashion." To that last claim by Williams, an exasperated Hume exclaimed: "It's not unilateral when it's 16 to 3!?" Source

The leaders of the Vilnius Group (Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) have joined the leaders of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in supporting the War on Saddam. (These nations have a few things in common: all survived decades of totalitarian dictatorship.) They join: Italy, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, the UK, Australia, Ireland, Turkey, Oman, Jordan, and Kuwait.

Versus 2 primarily (France and Germany) and some secondary-less-committed-to-opposition (Mexico, Canada, Russia, China, etc.).

1 - It is a war for oil.

· USinfo

· MEPC

· RPPI

Some facts about this conflict (Neal Boortz):

· Saddam Hussein has steadfastly refused to abide by more than 17 demands by the United Nations that he divest himself of weapons of mass destruction. He has refused . . . but it's all about oil.

· Saddam Hussein has used chemical and biological weapons against his own people . . . but it's all about oil.

· Saddam says he has no nuclear weapons program. Inspectors find over 3000 pages of documentary evidence to the contrary . . . but it's all about oil.

· Saddam says his missiles can't fly more than the allowed 150 miles. Inspectors find engineering plans and other evidence which shows that Saddam's missiles can fly to Tel Aviv and beyond. He lied . . . but it's all about oil.

· Saddam Hussein is on record as saying that his goal is one Arab world with one Arab ruler located in one Arab capitol. That ruler would be Saddam and that capitol would be Baghdad . . . but it's all about oil.

· The UN inspectors were sent to Iraq not to find weapons, but to verify that Saddam had disarmed. Hans Blix says that they have not disarmed . . . but it's all about oil.

· Hans Blix says that Saddam Hussein has not accepted the fact that he must disarm . . . but it's all about oil.

· The United States has an energy policy. All major industrial nations have energy policies. But the fact that the US has an energy policy means . . . it's all about oil.

· Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton. Halliburton is an energy company. This proves it's all about oil.

· When Dick Cheney became Vice President Halliburton didn't completely divest itself of any and all involvement with the oil industry. This proves that it's all about oil.

· George Bush used to work in the oil industry. More proof that it's all about oil.

-----------------

All in all, I think that we are doing the right thing. Saddam is a brutal dictator that threatens not only his own people, but those of neighboring countries (directly) and the world population as well (if indirectly),

He has had WMD. He wants WMD. He has worked at getting WMD or already has them. What is it about his actions that make some people think this state of affairs either a) is a good idea/none of our business or b) has gone away?

What would make one think that he no longer wants WMD and is no longer trying to get them (if he doesn't have them already e.g. nukes)?

So, given that, should we stop him prior to achieving his goal or should we wait until Jerusalem/Riyadh/Tehran/New York is a glowing hole in the ground? Or until he has given fissionable material to Al Qaeda in order to make LA uninhabitable? Or smallpox to Hamas for express delivery to your local neighborhood?

This is over and above the tyrannical nature of his leadership. Are Iraqi civilians any less deserving of freedom than Afghani peoples?

Predictions:

· "I think that in the first days of the war you can expect to see one or two instances where large number of Iraqi civilians die in an “attack.” There will be video available almost immediately. This video will show gruesome pictures of carnage... dead Iraqi women and children everywhere. The video will then be widely used around the world to show the devastation the evil Americans are bringing to the innocent women and children of Iraq. What we won’t be told is that it will have been Saddam, not the United States, that killed all of these civilians. Saddam will kill thousands of his own people and try to make it look like America is at fault. Killing his own people is really no big deal to Saddam Hussein, and he knows that there is no shortage of media outlets to help him with his plan." (Neal Boortz, again)

· After the war, rather than the protests predicted among Iraqi citizens because of the American "occupation," you will instead see celebrations of free Iraqi peoples who have been brutalized by Saddam and his henchmen.

Maybe we'll get lucky and one of his top lieutenants will assassinate him prior to everything starting up . . . but don't count on it. I recently read a report that many of Saddam's top military and governmental leaders were being placed under house arrest. Think he might be afraid of something?

--30--