Why the Bush administration intends to attack Iraq:

They desperately need a win.

Without a stream of high-stakes, high-profile, continuously captivating news stories in its favor, the Bush administration would be left to answer for a paralyzed economy and domestic policy in disarray. Instead they have decided to do battle with a despised opponent many times weaker, whom they feel certain they can defeat in a spectacle of intense, high-tech drama.


Refutations of the administration's stated reasons for attacking:

1. The US must respond with force to international terror

After the US was attacked on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration responded quickly and decisively to find and punish the perpetrators. They failed.

As it became clear that the admitted ring leader, Osama bin Laden, could not be brought to justice, the Bush administration turned its attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein to divert attention from its failure.

Despite a series of alerts varying in hue and intensity, no one has succeeded in attacking the US in almost two years. Whatever the US is doing to prevent terror seems to be working, or terrorists are waiting for an excuse to act. Aggression against an Islamic state will certainly rally more support and add credibility for the contention that the US poses a threat to the sovereignty and stability of the Middle East and any nation it chooses to oppose.

While Iraq may provide refuge and support to international terrorism (and it is not the only Arab state to do so), invading Iraq will do nothing to punish past attacks nor prevent future terror. In fact, it will most certainly unleash more terror.

Now committed to disarming Iraq and having deployed thousands of troops and tons of military equipment, the Bush administration cannot back away without justifying such a huge expense.


2. Iraq must be stopped from producing weapons of mass destruction:

There are any number of ways to disable Iraq's weapon-producing capabilities. They simply have not been explored. Invading a sovereign nation, overthrowing its leadership, and occupying it for an indefinite period of time amounts to the absolute worst of all possible options.

As an occupied nation, Iraq will be even more dangerous. The US may not be able to find and secure Iraq's current stockpile of dangerous weapons in time to prevent its use. It would face a tremendous backlash from tentatively allied Arab and European states and the resulting disintegration of its international credibility, the absence of a quick and sure victory, and the siphoning of human and economic resources from domestic needs to support the war would brew more opposition at home.

Occupied Iraq will, in effect, occupy US military forces and limit their ability to address potentially greater threats. The US homeland will become an even more irresistible target of terrorist attacks.

If the US acts unilaterally, it can expect at best unenthusiastic support from otherwise powerful allies such as Germany, France, and Russia.


3. The US must protect the Middle East and Europe

It has been argued that since it is the only world superpower, the United States has a responsibility to act as the world's police force. There is absolutely no basis or precedent for this claim. In fact the US has chosen selectively where to intervene as a police force, stepping in primarily where it has seen political or material advantage.

Germany, France, and Russia favor containment over war. Despite the fact that they are so much closer to Iraq, geographically, and would suffer more directly should Iraq unleash its weapons of mass destruction.

A Franco-German plan, now endorsed by the Russians, includes more arms inspectors, UN peacekeepers, and a no-fly zone over all Iraq. It provides a practical and enforceable alternative to war and a better way to keep Iraq firmly under control.


4. Containment won't keep Saddam and Iraq from doing harm.

Containment is working and shows no signs of not continuing to prevent Iraqi aggression. Iraq under Saddam has not attacked anyone outside of its borders for more than a decade. There is no credible reasons for expecting this to change. Saddam has no reason or motive for attacking any other nation.

Containment prevented the Soviet Union from using its huge nuclear arsenal against the US or any other nation for roughly 40 years. At one point the USSR began installing a delivery system for weapons of mass destruction in Cuba, just 90 miles from US shores. The US confronted the USSR and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Before that crisis and since then, mutual deterrence has kept both superpowers from attacking the other.


5. The US has the right to attack Iraq in self-defense.

Perhaps the most specious of all excuses for making war. It is not unlike shutting down a newspaper because one of its reporters happens to be writing an unfavorable article. Like shooting a suspect because he is armed, before he has reached for his weapon.

Furthermore, it is against international law to attack a country on the basis of what it might do. Iraq, having lost the Gulf War, remains under international sanctions. It must deliver on a long list of promises. However, this is an international issue. The US is taking part in the containment allowed by international agreements. Therefore, it must act in accord with international authority. This precludes acting on its own without international authority.


6. Saddam is an evil madman like Hitler and must be removed from power.

In the first place, such a claim is childishly simplistic. Saddam may be ruthless, cruel, and despotic, but attempting to remove him with a military force would be a mistake. He makes decisions that in his judgment will ensure his survival, increase his power, and maintain his control. Nothing would enhance his power more than a war. This may be why he seems to be inviting war. Calling his bluff may be exactly what he wants. It could give him the excuse he needs to show the world his worst.

Once engaged in war, both Bush and Saddam stand to gain power. Who will gain more? Saddam is shrewd enough to stay on top of powerful, militaristic forces under his command. The struggle for power that plays out behind the scenes in Iraq must make US politics look like a picnic. In short, the top dog in Iraq is no amateur. Mano a mano President Bush may be no match for Saddam Hussein.


7. If the United Nations Security Council won't act, the United States must.

It is the business of an international body such as the United Nations to decided what is to be done in matters international. So far, the United States, to gain credibility and international support, has acted in accordance with UN authority. The Bush administration has made it clear, however, that they will take military action with or without UN supports.

It is wrong to use the authority of the UN to make a case, then step beyond that authority to act. For the US to say that it wants to go into Iraq with the UN's blessing, but will go in without it, amounts to saying, "I'll play by your rules as long as they suit me." It makes the UN, in effect, a shill of the US.

If the US means to claim UN authority, it must ultimately abide by UN decisions. If it invades Iraq, it will be guilty of attempting to enforce international law by breaking international law.


8. The US will look weak and encourage more terrorism if it fails to deal militarily with Iraq.

The opposite is the case. Saddam is the one who looks impotent as he stalls and sidesteps, hides and lies. He is giving in to concessions, allowing U2 surveillance flights over Iraq. With more pressure, more concessions will follow. This kind of patient, painstaking negotiation has worked and will continue to keep Saddam under control.

Iraq is effectively contained and neutralized. Saddam may very well be piecing together an arsenal of horrific weapons, but he gains nothing by using them under present conditions. He is trapped and under enormous pressure to relieve his country's suffering and would love an opportunity to let loose what weapons he possesses in the name of that cause. To attack him gives him everything he needs to leap into the role of his people's savior whether he wins or loses.



About President Bush's apocalyptic delusions:

George W. Bush has made it clear that he sees himself as an instrument of God. He credits his born-again relationship with Jesus Christ as straightening out his former profligate lifestyle. As we have clearly and recently witnessed, men driven by messianic motivations are the most dangerous creatures on earth.

Bush is not alone, by far, in his quietly fanatical ambitions. John Ashcroft, Tom Delay, and others in the Bush Administration share similar religious delusions. They are currently engaged in systematically dismantling human rights in the name of national security, beginning with the Patriot Act of 2001 and in follow-up. If they are allowed to wage war, literally, all hell may break loose.
 

Return to Stimulation