CraigBarnes.IraqWa

GLOBAL DIALOG PROJECT << GLOBAL DIALOG HOME << Santa Fe Pages | Democracy ** Civil Liberties ** Freedom HOME >> The American Dream is not War by Craig Barnes

Craig Barnes' website: www.craig-barnes.com | In June of this year President Bush announced his intention to conduct pre-emptive military strikes against countries this administration considers dangerous, most especially any country that prepares weapons of mass destruction. Whether or not that country has committed an act of aggression or attacked anyone else, it may be subject to attack by the United States. In early July, one newspaper in Lebanon and another in Turkey reported that US reconnaissance troops had already crossed Iraq's borders in small numbers. Also in early July, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld launched an investigation against Pentagon leaks of plans for the Iraqi invasion. His tone, and promise to put violators in jail, announced to the world that these plans are not for harmless maneuvers. In mid-July the Associated Press reported that weapons makers had begun stockpiling free-fall bombs and also laser-guided bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles, boosting production to the highest levels in 15 years. Analysts told AP that these weapons are intended for use in Iraq. In late July, the president in a rousing speech told the soldiers of the Tenth Mountain Division in New York to get ready. He renewed his pledge to attack at will, without restraint, at any target he considers dangerous. "In some parts of the world, there will be no substitute for direct action by the United States. That is when we will send you, our military, to win the battles that only you can win." Simultaneously, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was in Turkey to discuss launching bases and invasion points into Iraq. Faced with questions about the actual evidence of danger from Saddam Hussein, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in June told reporters in Brussels that we may have to suppose evidence where there is no evidence: "the absence of evidence," he said, "is not evidence of absence." The Secretary thus created the pre-requirement of this administrationif we are not to invadefor proof of a negative. But absence of anything can never be proven. The Secretary is explicitly warning us that concrete evidence of danger to the US will not be a precondition to invasion of Iraq. A former head weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, recently wrote that his UN team witnessed "90-95 percent destruction of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agents produced by Iraq." (Boston Globe, July 20, 2002.) Statements like Ritteršs, however, will not deter an administration which says that concrete evidence of danger will not be a pre-condition. The preemptive strike policy has no declared standards, no limits and no trigger except the personal displeasure or the president. The president may decide to take on Iraq because he has a good military reason or because he wants to avenge his fatheršs embarrassment. He will not tell Iraq in advance what that country must do to avoid attack and he will not tell the American people. Once the attack is begun it is likely that congressional leaders will decry public resistance as unpatriotic. Majority and minority parties will go quiet as they did this spring when the mildest dissent provoked outrage. In America today there is therefore no political party to resist the unilateral declaration of war and no congressional process, no discussion in the open, no debate between conscientious and concerned citizens. There is no test of law or public opinion or congressional vote of confidence or any other objective standard to harness the power of a war-minded president. Whether or not the attack is justified militarily, it will likely serve some domestic calendar. This might be to aid in winning the fall elections or to revive the stock market or to divert attention from corporate scandal. The consequence, however, will not be just domestic. The potential to create a catalogue of civilian Iraqi martyrs and thereby to unleash a sense of righteous and horrified disgust amongst the global Islamic community is beyond calculation. If we want to create a war of civilizations, an unprovoked war upon a sitting Islamic regime is a likely best way to do it. We only have to look to the Israelis and Palestinians to see how hurts, once unleashed, are remembered for generations. This is therefore a moment of some danger to civil society. Both because we appear to be wading into a conflict of incalculable cultural consequence and from the standpoint of American institutions. The president is telling us that he intends to cross a line, leaving civilian and legal restraints behind. It is as if ancient democratic Athens had decided to become like ancient warmongering Sparta. The country is being led down a path toward the unilateral, arbitrary and subjective use of military power. For 200 years a great many American presidents struggled to keep this from happening and a great many American boys died to keep it from happening. Now it is happening. Craig S. Barnes has been a trial lawyer, playwright and author, a regular commentator on NPR stations, a weekly newspaper columnist, college teacher of law and international affairs, negotiator in Moscow during the Cold War, in ethnic cleansing disputes in the Caucuses, and for the US Government in water disputes in Central Asia. His web site is www.craig-barnes.com.

Participant Comments follow below

02/17/03 08:46:25 GMT