Top Ten Bogus Justifications for the Iraqi War

On last week's episode of The McLaughlin Group, pundit Pat Buchanan stated flatly that, "the only people who will benefit from this war are Richard Perle, Ariel Sharon and Osama bin Laden." Indeed, the top priorities of the Bush Administration right now are to feed the War Party's insatiable appetite for bloodshed, to enable the Israeli Right Wing, and to provide terrorist masterminds with a pretext for further symbolic attacks. Unfortunately, the grave that the Administration is currently digging for itself will be big enough for all of us.

However obvious this may be, and despite the widespread misgivings of sane people the world over, reality is currently being overwhelmed by this administration's boundless stores of belligerence. As we will see, toppling the flimsy foundations on which the pro-war edifice rests is not a very difficult matter. While the War Party's fraudulent justifications for war are myriad, debunking the top ten will suffice.

1. War on Iraq Will Make the World Safer From Terrorism

In a recent speech, Anthony Cordesman of the CSIS warned that, "five years from now, the world will be a much more dangerous place than it is today." The ripple effect of a war on Iraq would cause scores of new terrorist groups to spring up all over the Islamic world. The decimation of the Iraqi civilian population – an unavoidable result of the Pentagon's use of quasi-nukes, and indeed of its general plan for a massive attack – would immediately and irrevocably turn millions of Muslims against the United States.

CIA director George Tenet has repeatedly said that terrorism will only increase in the event of a war. Certainly, he is someone who has the inside knowledge to support this rather commonsensical belief. Recently his agency reaffirmed it, and added that anti-Americanism will be a strong force in the dark new world of the immediate future: "…in human terms, your daughters are unlikely to be able to travel abroad in future years without a phalanx of security personnel." American troops stationed in Iraq would be directly targeted by terrorists "sucked in" from far and wide.

However, the Bush Administration has been fairly successful in convincing Americans that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are somehow working in tandem. They have been able to exploit widespread American ignorance to bury the fact that Saddam and Osama are mutual antagonists. Hussein's regime, while brutal, is relatively secular. And, whereas bin Laden promotes the creation of a multi-national "pan-Arab theocracy," Hussein is an Iraqi nationalist. The former has openly declared his loathing for the latter.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, the wheels of propaganda have been greased by gaping ignorance:

"A recent Knight Ridder survey showed that 45 percent of those polled believe that "some" or "most" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis. In fact, 15 of the 19 were Saudis."

No matter. This is one misconception that the White House has no interest in correcting. Yet even as the buildup of troops in the Gulf grows larger – and more costly – by the day, the administration is forced to admit that its counter-terrorism budget is "meager" – and that we are no closer to finding bin Laden, either. A suggestion: have they checked Saddam's palaces?

The most dangerous outcome of the erroneous association is aptly stated in the CSM article cited above:

"As the US continues to press its case against these two men, US policymakers must identify and understand the differences between them, says Roxanne Euben, a political science professor at Wellesley College. The more they are lumped together, she says, "the more we risk bringing about the collaboration we most fear, thereby making it a self-fulfilling prophecy."

This statement needs to be qualified somewhat. It is not so much that Osama and Saddam would be sitting in some bunker together, plotting and poring over maps. Rather, it's the independent collaboration of goals – the probability that bin Laden will hijack the Iraqi cause for his own (theocratic) ends, while Saddam will try to do the same for his own (nationalistic) purposes. In the event of a war, either or both of these movements will look pretty appealing to many frustrated, disenfranchised budding jihadis.

That said, the professor is right about the result – that any ensuing terrorism should have been predicted. Surely the Bush Administration is well aware that it is fulfilling that prophecy as we speak.

Sadly, when the inevitable occurs, and the United States is again attacked, the clear causative connection between Iraq and terrorism will be quietly buried by the needs of the moment. When the free world's fearless leader attempts to rally the people after the next unspeakable act of terror, Americans will be too shocked to even think of blaming their government for bringing death and destruction upon them. And for bravely leading a nation in crisis, Bush may even win an election – or at least the favorable mention in the history books that would have almost certainly been denied him, before this whole mess started. Sadly, modern America is a country where leaders rally, and liars lead.

2. Saddam Hussein – the Biggest Threat to American National Security

Contrary to what the Bush Administration would have us believe, Saddam is not the biggest threat to national security. The CIA and FBI continue to reserve that honor for al Qaeda. Indeed, Saddam – "…perhaps only fifth or sixth on the list," according to recent intelligence analyses – has been contained for so many years, his army so diminished, that it is ludicrous to believe Iraq presents a threat to America. The US government has continually presented the case that Saddam possesses the infamous "WMD" (weapons of mass destruction), and intends to use them. Yet, if this is indeed the case, hasn't he certainly had ample time and reason to deploy them over the past 12 years? The fact that Saddam has never used such weapons against the Americans – even when they were invading his own country – shows that he is far more cautious than Bush and Co. would have us believe. Again, the greater danger from Iraq is that such weapons – if they do indeed exist – could fall into the hands of freelance terrorists (i.e., not state-sponsored) during the chaos of battle. And that is when we could really be in trouble.

More than a threat to American national security, Saddam Hussein is currently a threat to the collective pride of the War Party. One simply cannot whip up as much antagonistic rhetoric as they have and then meekly back down. Especially since failing to catch Osama bin Laden was a big (but now buried) personal blow, their overweening hubris can only be satisfied by eliminating Saddam Hussein. It is unfortunate that, when the ineluctable result of this Greek tragedy arrives, the rest of us will also share in the fall.

3. Overthrowing Saddam Will Stabilize the Region

Replacing the Iraqi government with an American military lordship, and indefinitely occupying a completely shattered country – do they really consider this a recipe for regional stability? Unfortunately, the Bush Administration did not really think out the whole operation to its logical conclusion. As recently as September, the president said that it was "up to the international community" to pick a successor, and that he would accept "any alternative" to Saddam. It seems that for the Americans, the idea of who would run the post-war Iraq is merely an unpleasant and irritating afterthought.

The original plan – to set up Iraqi National Congress head Ahmed Chalabi as president – was considered until early February, but retracted after the CIA objected. The Iraqi expat banker was seen as too compromised and too unpopular at home.

By ignoring Hussein's Ba'athist Party, the US has greatly limited its options. After axing Chalabi, the only players left were the Kurds and the Shiite fundamentalists (the Turkoman and Assyrian minorities, it is thought, aren't sufficiently powerful to lead).

The final decision – to install "Guv'nah" Tommy Franks as military dictator, ruling over a coterie of US Army "cabinet ministers" – was hit upon as the Administration realized, too late, that all other contenders were fatally compromised. Empowering the Kurds would involve instant intervention from Turkey. Inviting in the Iran-backed fundamentalists from the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq" would – well, you figure it out.

However, the exclusion of any of these groups will also cause turmoil and even civil war. And so the brilliant plan that will make Iraq the 51^st state was reached as a kind of desperate nod to pragmatism. The Kurds, who are wary of American betrayal in the past, want safeguards against Turkish attacks from the north. And the Turks want their liabilities covered, too – only that they're not counting on the Americans to do it, especially after raising the stakes by denying American troops access to the country. Yet despite Ankara's assurances, it is hard to believe that the installation of up to 80,000 Turkish troops in northern Iraq would not quickly spill over into all-out war. The US naïvely seems to believe that, if only its soldiers were leading the march from southern Turkey, it could keep the two enemies at bay. However, there is the volatile issue of Kirkuk – de facto capital of northern, Kurdish Iraq and a prize coveted for its wealth of oil. Both the Turks and Kurds have demanded the city; the Americans, therefore, are determined to see that neither of them gets it. But will they believe to do so, without access from Turkey? Things could get very messy very soon.

Iran and Syria, which also have their own Kurdish minorities, share Turkey's anxieties. Should Kurdish militias be perceived as dangerous, one should not rule out the intervention of either. It has proven difficult for the US to reassure Iraq's neighbors of their safety in the wake of an attack. Even worse, the domestic opposition the US would like to court – namely, the Iraqi Kurds and the Shiites – are fractious and retain dark, decade-old memories of American betrayal. Getting this cast of characters united behind Uncle Sam, for any length of time and for any coherent purpose is unlikely.

4. A War Will Save the US Economy

The likelihood of war is causing daily fluctuations in major economic indices such as the price of oil and stocks. Analysts are fairly unanimous in saying that war fears are impacting negatively on the world economy. Indeed, every time Washington issues a new ultimatum (or, indeed, every time Donald Rumsfeld opens his mouth) stocks fall and investor confidence plunges.

Right now American oil reserves are as low as they've ever been, and world prices are now hovering at almost $40 a barrel – and could soon top $50 a barrel. However, the latest predictions are that in an extended war oil could hit $80 a barrel, according to New Zealand treasury officials. The potential effects of such a hike are hard to imagine. Yet even if oil doesn't go through the roof in such a way, merely remaining at $40 will cause major harm to the US economy over the next 6 months.

In addition, war jitters have led to the biggest collapse of American consumer confidence in a decade. Reports the Times of London:

"The slump in American consumer confidence caught financial markets totally unaware. Most analysts predicted a modest decline, but the 15-point drop in the US Conference Board's index to 64.0 was comparable to the 17-point drop seen immediately after the September 11 attacks, far worse than any analyst had been expecting.

"Ian Shepherdson, chief US economist at High Frequency Economics, said: 'This is not an immediate disaster for the economy, but it will be if there is no resolution of the Iraq crisis in the next month or two.'"

The report concludes that if current trends continue, consumer spending may not grow at all this year: "…this is clearly very worrying since consumer spending has been almost the only thing keeping the economy afloat." Apparently, not even the run on plastic sheets and duct tape will save us now.

There is also the question of how we will fund this little adventure. Currently, there are over 200,000 American soldiers in the Gulf, poised for action. According to Donald Rumsfeld, estimating the war's cost is "impossible" – in other words, more than anyone could ever imagine.

Even worse are the post-war estimates. On 25 February, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee that, "…something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required," to keep the peace. A figure "in the many billions" was thrown out recently by another American official. It is clear that without being consulted and without approving, the American taxpayer is going to bear the brunt of the coming folly.

5. War Will Bring Democracy to the Arabs

The United States claims that by overthrowing Saddam a new and more democratic government can be installed – something that will be greeted with joyous praise from all those living in Iraq.

The only problem is that it will be a democracy imposed by tyrants – a point that will not be forgotten. Further, whatever "government" the Americans install will have no validity whatsoever among the Iraqi people (should there be any left after the massive bombings being planned). The "opposition" is fractious and unruly, riven by internal dissent and the ulterior motives of external sponsors. It is "just large enough to be useless," in the words of one delegate, and composed of parties whose allegiances are doubtful. As the Guardian put it last November, "…the fact that most have foreign patrons also raises a question about the degree of their legitimacy and autonomy."

Some – like the 'Islamic Revolution' folks – gamely assert their love of democracy. Says party rep Hamid al-Bayati, "…everybody believes in democracy, even Islamists. We are Islamists, and we believe that democracy is the only way to ensure freedom." However, al-Bayati's Islamist peer among the Kurds, Sheikh Assar Feily, quite bluntly states that, "…Iraqis will never let an American soldier be the ruler."

This sentiment only increases as the opposition parties realize that they won't get what they want. If united, theirs will be a coalition based on shared deprivation.

In short, no matter what kind of puppet regime is installed, the military occupation of Iraq is doomed to fail. Almost daily, new reports emerge that indicate American forces will be greeted with widespread resentment from the residents (of all ethnicities) in Iraq. In short, Americans who expect the troops will be greeted with cheers and American flags are beyond deluded:

"…virtually all Iraqis will fiercely resist any U.S.-led invasion, (Engineer Qusai) Jabbar predicts.

"You don't need to be in love with Saddam to defend your country to the last," he said. "Americans think they will come here and rule us. They don't know what they are coming into. If they get food from someone, it will be poisoned. If they turn around with their back to us, we will stick a knife in it. Snipers will be looking for them from every rooftop."

Even if such a sprightly defense does not spring up from the locals, the upheaval and chaos of the ensuing "reconstruction" will open up a new and attractive market for suicide bombers from far and wide. But one does not even need to look far. Indeed, sporadic reports have attested to the existence of an al Qaeda-linked group existing in "free" Kurdish areas near the Iran border. The borders with all neighboring states are both vast and porous. The US will find that blowing things up from high altitudes is much more simple than is defending even one building from a terrorist attack.

Yet if Saddam is the hated oppressor, than why does such apparent resentment of America exist? Fundamentally, the practice of overthrowing governments in the name of democracy building is the problematic issue. For it is, in another time and under another name, the same thing as the medieval Crusades. In the end, regime change for "democracy" differs little from Muslim extremists' desires to forcibly spread Islam across the globe.

However, the analogy seem to have gone over the head of warmonger-in-chief Richard Perle, who is now demanding regime changes in Iran, Syria and Libya:

"Perle said he does not expect significant Arab opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East.

'What interests me is that almost all Arab states are showing a sense of realism and an understanding of their own interests on this issue."

Imagine that! The unnamed "12 Arab states" supporting the US are, no doubt, cowering in fear, lest their regimes be changed too.

6. Because We're Already There

Perhaps the lamest reason is the one most cited by military planners: that it would be a shame not to have a war, since we've gone to so much trouble already to send massive amounts of troops, aircraft and armaments. The fact that most of these are floating on aircraft carriers is a good reminder that none of them had been invited by anyone in the region.

7. Because George W. Bush is a Moral Man

The strangest justification for war is one dear to the hearts of "Christian conservatives," who incidentally enough make up the president's power base. This view states that war is justified because George Bush is a moral man, and therefore, a moral (read: infallible) leader. Armstrong Williams, a popular black Evangelical radio host, declared as much in a passionate speech recently in Arlington, Virginia. The frightening thing, to judge from the many nodding heads in the crowd, is that many people actually believe this logic.

It is an utterly subjective issue, whether or not the president – or anyone, for that matter – is "moral." And it would not even be a topic for serious thought, except that the morality madness has influential backers. Yet now that such criteria are being used to justify military action, we are swerving disturbingly close to mindsets thought long retired, such as the (literally) god-given authority of the Roman emperors, or the divine right of kings promulgated by medieval rulers in Western Europe.

However, the president himself seems to enjoy such laudations. Don't forget that he turned down Saddam's invite for a debate out of fear of "moral equivalency." Hopefully Bush's policy will catch on – and we can all start refusing to speak to people we find less moral than ourselves.

Attending functions such as the 51^st Annual National Prayer Breakfast, hiring fundamentalists like Attorney General John Ashcroft, and empowering the religious right in general are proof that Bush's is the most theocratic administration in recent memory. When it comes time for the bombs to fall, he can surely count on the support of those who see the war as an opportunity to bring on the Apocalypse and Second Coming as quickly as possible.

But no matter. We should have faith in our leaders and military, what with all of their modern, high-tech equipment. Indeed, if the smart bombs, night-vision goggles, surveillance planes, etc. were not formidable enough, we should remember that the US has a secret weapon:

"CIA Director George Tenet told the (prayer) breakfast, "God teaches us to be resolute in the face of evil, using all of the weapons and armor that the word of God supplies."

And we wonder why Osama is still at large.

8. War: The American People Want It

American public support is shaky at best and continues to waver. It is currently hovering at just over 50 percent, but since the beginning of February just keeps on slipping. After the massive peace demonstrations of 15 February, antiwar activists did not take a breather, but actually have stepped up the pace. Last week's "virtual march" on Washington saw hundreds of thousands of phone calls and faxes from all across America flood White House and congressional switchboards. The nation's largest labor union, AFL-CIO, just announced its official opposition to the war. 59 major American musicians and Ben & Jerry's founder Ben Cohen have publicized the antiwar movement in recent days. Even senior citizens are out there kicking up a storm.

The administration's reply to this notable dissent can best be described as utterly contemptuous. In his official reaction to the 11-million strong world protest, President Bush compared the peace-loving majority to a "focus group," and ruled out taking their concerns into consideration. This regrettable statement shows that George Bush is completely out of touch with the reality of the world's antiwar feeling. In fact, if you want to talk about narrow-minded interest groups, why don't we consider the president's supporters:

"…Pew found support among college graduates was 13 points lower than among those without degrees. Backing among rural residents was 16 points higher than among city dwellers. White evangelical Christians were the strongest backers of all – 85 percent in the Pew poll."

Nevertheless, even this dependable bedrock of support may be eroded as Americans learn more and more of the truth. After having been lied to every time an intervention took place, Americans are growing increasingly wary of giving their unreserved trust to the government – especially one that loves domestic spying. The media is also coming under scrutiny. We know that CNN is now actively cooperating with Pentagon requests that all reports be censored by "monitors" before they can be broadcast. Since this information is now in the public domain, viewers will be watching the news far more critically than they did during the first Gulf War.

In the end, even the most gung-ho war supporters may be swayed when they see American civilians being targeted as "enemy combatants."

9. Because We're Supported by an 'Alliance of the Willing'

Turkey's miraculous, unexpected defiance of American warmongering on Saturday left Washington "stunned," and its war plans in jeopardy. By refusing to accept American troops on its territory, the Turkish parliament took a risk that will hopefully embolden other countries that have much less to lose by standing up for themselves.

Indeed, if we want to talk about democracy, the much-maligned Turkey appears to be the only US ally that has heeded the popular will of its citizens. Its population is dead set against a war, its new government is unsettled by the mere thought of one, and the all-powerful military is extremely hostile to the idea of tens of thousands of US troops intervening on its soil. The bravery of its parliament in upholding democracy is to be commended.

Most analysts and/or pessimists (such as myself) did not really believe Turkey would pull through. Its initial bargaining price – $92 billion – was quite obviously a bluff. The request provoked open anger in Washington; surely, the Turks never expected to get it. They were instead presented with $26 billion as the US' final offer.

Those who accuse Turkey of greediness have to consider that the first Gulf War – undoubtedly, less dangerous and costly than its coming sequel – eliminated $80 billion from the Turkish economy. The $26 billion that the US was recently offering is a drop in the bucket compared to what Turkey will incur in losses. And, if this war goes as badly as many believe, the country's economic and even territorial security will be severely jeopardized. In overthrowing Saddam, the US may just send the entire region into chaos. And how much will $26 billion – or even $92 billion – matter then?

But even in the best-case scenario, war funding tends to be a myth. Although the bribery amounts look very generous on paper, the full amount never arrives. Indeed, it's not as if the US Treasury writes out checks for $26 billion, saying, "there boys, go wild."

No, the granting of aid means simply that the donators are given even more control over the country in question, deciding what can be spent where, calling on loans at random, and finally, issuing thinly veiled political threats. Turkey remains vulnerable to US coercion because the latter has saddled it with so many unpayable IMF loans. In Macedonia's case, a dependence on outside aid has reduced it to a mere object of political manipulation. Indeed, that country has still not received funds promised for the major strain that came from accepting 400,000 Kosovo Albanian refugees in 1999. There is no reason to believe that things will turn out differently in the case of Iraq and the "coalition of the willing."

US officials quite happily admit that they are merely buying off countries. But they deny bullying some of them. However, even countries that seem happy enough in public (like Mexico) are privately in distress:

"…Mexican diplomats have previously described their conversations with U.S. officials as hostile in tone and complained that Washington was demonstrating little concern for the constraints of the Mexican government, whose people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war with Iraq.

"They actually told us: 'any country that doesn't go along with us will be paying a heavy price,' one Mexican diplomat said recently."

Courted merely for its temporary Security Council membership, Mexico is (or was) showing more gumption than other Council part-timers. US officials have descended on the Dark Continent to try and buy three votes from Cameroon, Guinea and Angola. Since a relatively small amount of cash goes a long way in Africa, they will probably be successful.

Washington has used harsher tactics when dealing with real countries. Yet US intransigence continues to alienate important Security Council members Russia, China and France. The sentiment is that at no time in its history has America bullied so much as now. Many warn that the US could well lose its allies over Iraq – and especially if it decides to buck the Security Council and rush recklessly off to war. Even the stalwart Brits are unnerved by the news that America plans to use toxic gas against the Iraqis – something forbidden by UK law.

Furthermore, cooperation is set to plummet now that a secret NSA document leaked to the Observer has exposed Condeleeza Rice's plan to tap the phones and monitor the emails of Security Council ambassadors in New York. As this brazen affront to good diplomatic relations sinks in, and as the courageous example of Turkey resonates around the world, we just may see the "alliance of the willing" unravel before our eyes.

10. Because Empire's Duty Demands Noble Sacrifice

As I have noted elsewhere, a disturbing new trend in War Party apologia, from Right and Left alike, has sprung up from the ashes of September 11^th. It is the rhetoric of empire – one justified by our alleged benevolence – and is repeatedly cast in terms of Americans called to fulfill a "duty" that inherently involves "sacrifice." This logic speaks of a war we are undertaking "unwillingly," one that has been "thrust upon us." At the above-mentioned "National Prayer Breakfast," the president said, "one thing is for certain, we didn't ask for these challenges. But we will meet them." One might think he was talking about a broken leg.

Of course, in reality the only ones doing the thrusting are the hawks in the current administration. And the main sacrifice they seem to be making is of their sanity.

Sacrifice for the greater good has long been one of the trickiest issues for American politicians to utilize. A trite CNN synopsis recalls that Jimmy Carter once asked the people to wear sweaters and lower their thermostats; however, the article doesn't report the strong negative backlash to Carter's plea. Nor does it consider the fundamental disparities existing between different "sacrifices" at different times. However, America's traditionally anti-Socialist mindset means that, historically speaking, calls to sacrifice for society as a whole have been met with considerable suspicion. It is evident that political stratagems invoking conditions for "sacrifice" have differed considerably when used by Democrats and Republicans.

That said, one has to wonder how the American people will react now, in regards to a war that is publicly being associated with the narrow interests of the business partners of Bush, Cheney et al. Even as Americans at home are told to "sacrifice" their livelihood for the war, it's come out that certain companies are set for $900 million in future Iraq reconstruction contracts. This number is eclipsed, of course by the profits that oil companies and military contractors will make off of Iraq.

Indeed, the issue of noble sacrifice may just prove to be the Bush Administration's undoing. Most Americans prefer a republic, not an empire, and a strong economy as well. Especially after Enron, there is little interest in sacrificing to ensure the bottom line of characters like Dick Cheney.

President Bush is currently out of step not only with public antiwar opinion – but also, with the importance of the economy to most Americans. Perhaps there will be some brief surge of popular support when the bombs start falling, but in the long, violent and messy peace that will follow, widespread grumbling will almost certainly set in. Invokers of sacrifice as a national principle have traditionally had a rough time of it. In regards to Iraq (which has, after all, never attacked the US) gung-ho patriotism is at low ebb. The Bush Administration may well need to seek out a new strategy for unity in the Empire – or forever hold its peace.