GLOBAL DIALOG PROJECT |
Democracy ** Civil Liberties ** Freedom HOME >>
by Craig Barnes
|
Craig Barnes' website:
|
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.
|
02/17/03 08:46:25 GMT |