The Case Against War

Since the inception of its �War on Terrorism�, the Bush Administration has been signaling that it plans to invade Iraq to bring about a regime change, that is, the overthrow of the government of a sovereign state. Oblivious to any criticism, the administration has recently stated that it plans to carry out this mission, even if it means that the United States will be acting contrary to the wishes of every other nation in the world.

Since the inception of its \"War on Terrorism\", the Bush Administration has been signaling that it plans to invade Iraq to bring about a regime change, that is, the overthrow of the government of a sovereign state. Oblivious to any criticism, the administration has recently stated that it plans to carry out this mission, even if it means that the United States will be acting contrary to the wishes of every other nation in the world.

Originally, Bush had suggested that his administration would move forward in its war plans with or without the backing of Congress and the United Nations. Recently, however, he has been making overtures to both institutions. According to the speech he made in New York in September to the United Nations, the UN must take action or \"become irrelevant.\" Many people have interpreted this remark to mean that the US would act alone even if the UN refuses to endorse a hit on Iraq.

As far as whether or not Congress will support the war, there are many factors involved. The resolution that is being pushed by the war hawks would give Bush powers of war not only in Iraq, but in the whole region. It is, according to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a \"blank check\" that she could \"never support.\" There is an opposition to the Bush plans in Congress, even amongst a number of Republicans. Pro-war senators themselves have been forced to admit that the vast majority of calls coming into their offices are from people demanding that they will vote \"no\" on the war resolution. Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), admitted this on radio, according to People\'s Weekly World. It is yet to be determined whether the opposition will be strong enough to stop the war drive, but a victory over the ultra-right in the upcoming elections could turn the tide against the Bush plans.

Seeking to gain support for its plans, officials within the Bush Administration have been attempting to frighten the American people with stories of Iraqi danger. According to them, Iraq has been building, or trying to build weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. \"Imagine a Sept. 11 with weapons of mass destruction,\" Defense Secretary Rumsfield said recently on television, implying that Iraq was somehow a danger to the United States.

Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, issued a dossier on September 24, in which it was alleged that Iraq is trying to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and also missiles that could reach as far as Europe. The report went on to say that Hussein had been searching for contacts from whom he could buy the materials necessary for production of such weapons. Bush has said that this report spells out why the US needs to remove Hussein. However, those who have read the dossier say that it is all speculation, without evidence. According to Alan Simpson, who is a member of the British Parliament in Blair\'s own Labour Party, \"There is no smoking gun to be found in this dossier. At best, it is a deeply flawed, partial and superficial document that is heavy on suppositions and light on facts. It is closer to propaganda than it is to scrutiny.\"

In contradiction to what the Bush officials have been saying, it is hard to find any good reason to support an invasion of Iraq. Most likely, the charge that Iraq has been developing weapons of mass destruction is unfounded. According to Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, \"The truth is, Iraq is not a threat to its neighbors and it is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside its borders. Other former UN investigators have echoed Ritter, saying that Iraq poses no threat. There is simply no evidence to suggest that Iraq is a threat to anyone.

On September 16, 2002, Iraq agreed to open itself up to UN inspections, to prove that there are no weapons of mass destruction in this nation. Unfortunately the Bush administration seems determined to not let this interfere with their war party. According to the White House, Iraq\'s offer is just a \"clever ploy.\" Nelson Mandela issued a stinging criticism of Bush\'s reaction to the offer: \"What right has he to come in to say that offer is not genuine? We must condemn that very strongly.\"

The above should not be taken, however, to imply that Saddam Hussein is some benevolent leader. He is a dictator. No one should forget, though, that during the 1980s, Bush\'s father served in an administration that supported Hussein\'s use of chemical weapons against Iran and the ethnic Kurdish population of Iraq. It would be good if Hussein\'s regime were replaced by a more democratic system, but of the anti-Hussein groups in Iraq, none support a US invasion. In the words of a communiqu� of the Iraqi Communist Party, \"achieving change is a task for our people and their armed forces, led by the alliance of patriotic opposition forces.\" The communiqu� also pointed out what the previous invasions of Iraq had meant for the people of their nation: \"they leave behind death, destruction and tragedies, and do not bring about democracy.\"

According to the Washington Post, \"A US led ouster of Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq...\" It\'s no secret that Bush, Cheney, and most of the people around them are heavily involved in the oil and energy industries. Iraq nationalized all of its oil fields in the 1970s, as did most other oil-producing nations. According an interview published in People\'s Weekly World, to George Caffentzis, a professor at the University of Southern Maine, \"a reversal of the nationalization...is a very important aspect of the Bush administration\'s policy.\" This reversal would make it possible for US oil companies--which Bush and company are tied to--to dominate the Iraqi oil.

Though a war would benefit American oil companies, it would also destabilize the rest of the world. Bush is considering an invasion of Iraq by 200,000 American soldiers. This would be infinitely more deadly for these soldiers than the 1991 Gulf War. James Baker, who was Secretary of State during the Gulf War, worried that today the soldiers would get involved in urban warfare in Baghdad, which would result in many returning to the Unites States in body bags.

The toll on the Iraqi people would be even worse than the toll on the soldiers of the US. Harsh sanctions, in place since the Gulf War, have broken Iraq. Since 1991, more than 1,000,000 children have died, the medical system and the infrastructure have collapsed, and famine and disease have become widespread. The people today have no way of coping with or protecting themselves from bombing or invasion.

An invasion of Iraq would isolate the United States from the rest of the world. The Vatican has recently criticized the Bush Administration in the strongest terms, and so have many other nations. Gerhard Schroeder won the recent elections in Germany mainly because he strongly condemned the American plans for war in the Middle East. One of his ministers, before the elections, compared the US President to Hitler. Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, France, and many other countries have been highly critical of Bush\'s drive for war.

Perhaps most importantly, an invasion could touch off a powder keg in the Middle East. According to Amr Mussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, an invasion of Iraq could \"open the doors of hell.\" According to Daniel Pearson of American Friends Service Committee, \"We all deserve better answers to our questions before we move any further toward more war,\"

The Bush plans must be opposed. In doing so we will be in the company of the vast majority of the people on Earth, and a good number of American people as well, according to recent opinion polls. If everyone in opposition to a war on Iraq stand together in unity, we can defeat the Bush administration and avert a major disaster in the Middle East. Here in the United States, as a first step, we can send a strong message in the November elections by defeating the Republican bids to gain control of Congress.