posted 10-01-2002 05:45 PM            

Mech

posted 10-01-2002 10:20 PM            

Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says

By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush's plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home.

"This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq," Byrd said. "The [political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.

"Don't tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war," Byrd told the Senate on Friday.

"Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No."

Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.

"Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines," Byrd told the Senate. "Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him."

Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush's war resolution. "But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration."

Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both praised Byrd after he spoke.

"It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions," Clinton said. "No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from West Virginia."

Byrd said, "Before the nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying."

Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.

"Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.

"Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me," Byrd said.

"We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world."

Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including:

# Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?

# Should the United States act alone?

# What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?

# How many civilians would die in Iraq?

# How many American forces would be involved?

# How do we afford this war?

# Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?

# Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?

Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the "broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress."

Byrd also criticized Bush's request for power to carry out "pre-emptive attacks" and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East.

posted 10-01-2002 10:32 PM            

It sure smells like imperialism. That's the word historians use when powerful nations grab control of desired resources, be it the gold of the New World or the oil of the Middle East.

Imperialist greed is what "regime change" in Iraq and "anticipatory self-defense" are all about, and all of the rest of the Bush administration's talk about security and democracy is a bunch of malarkey.

In the laundry list of reasons the Bush team has been trotting out in defense of a unilateral invasion of Iraq, oil is never mentioned. Is the fact that Iraq holds a huge pool of oil a piddling footnote to this debate? Is that Gulf War protest sign, "No Blood for Oil," too cynical, even passe? Perhaps we should ask National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who served as a Chevron director and had an oil tanker named after her.

Despite her corporate connections, Rice is a scholar, and she should know her history: For 50 years, we and the British before us have assumed the same neocolonial posture vis-a-vis Iraq as we do with Saudi Arabia and its surrounding sheikdoms and Iran. The Gulf War, fought to save U.S. corporate interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, was only the latest example of this heavy-handed policy. Think Halliburton and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The strategy is pretty much the same as that drawn up by the Romans: Find and support local strongmen who can deliver the goods to the imperial capital, come hell or high water. How they treat their own people is not our business; we have never cared about democracy in the Mideast unless one of its dictators happened to fail to toe our line.

That is why our CIA facilitated the rise to power of Iraq's Baath party and ultimately the succession of Saddam Hussein as its current leader. The first Bush administration supported Hussein, providing him with the means to wage chemical and biological war, up to the day he invaded Kuwait, another of our client states. After his defeat, we became totally disinterested in the freedom of the people of the countries we had rescued. So much so, in fact, that Saudi Arabia was allowed to thrive as the world capital of religious hatred and the major sponsor of terrorists, producing Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers who gave us the Sept. 11 tragedy.

The same contempt for democracy has marked our policy toward Iran, that other member of the "axis of evil" we helped create. When Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh moved to eliminate foreign control over Iran's oil, the CIA and its British counterpart overthrew him in 1953. Despite our babbling about democracy, we had no compunction about replacing the elected Mossadegh with a guy who claimed the hereditary right to the throne as shah of all shahs.

When the shah dared to act in the interest of his people--and his own bank account--by bolstering the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in the push for higher oil prices, we came to regard him, too, as expendable.

Even our support of Israel had less to do with the struggle of a brave people for a deserved homeland and more with the usefulness of that country as an agent of our Mideast ambitions and a reliable ally in offsetting expanding Soviet influence in the region.

With the end of the Cold War, we were at a loss for a noble rationale to justify our heavy Mideast presence, which has been enormously profitable to some American corporations and industries that are well represented in this administration. Support democracy? We do subsidize Israel, the region's only functioning democracy, but our motives look less than pure when we fawn over cooperative dictatorships such as the regime in the United Arab Emirates, which forked over $6.4 billion to Lockheed Martin for fighter jets and gives us access to its oil.

Having just fought to free themselves from one of history's great empires, this nation's founding founders fiercely and repeatedly warned of the risks of imperial ambitions. Because of this, most Americans, whether liberal or conservative, grasp the fundamental truth that foreign entanglements destabilize, backfire and cost too much in lives and dollars.

posted 10-01-2002 10:35 PM            

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Fighting a full-scale war with Iraq would cost up to $9 billion a month, congressional budget experts said as the Senate prepared to open debate this week on a resolution authorizing President Bush to wage that war.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld continued to press the need for tough action against Iraq, citing 67 incidents in the past two weeks of Iraq firing on U.S. and British warplanes patrolling no-fly zones in the country.

"With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for U.N. resolutions" demanding that Iraq allow unimpeded weapons inspections and disarm, Rumsfeld said Monday.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a report Monday said uncertainty about the length and intensity of a war with Iraq made predicting the cost difficult.

But it estimated that deploying U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf would cost from $9 billion to $13 billion, and that the monthly cost of combat by either heavy ground or air forces would be $6 billion to $9 billion.

Another $5 billion to $7 billion would be required to bring the troops home after a war. The monthly cost of a postwar peacekeeping force — excluding humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction — would be $1 billion to $4 billion.

"This debate should not be driven by how much it will cost U.S. taxpayers," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. But he said it was important to keep in mind that three months of combat with a heavy ground force and a five-year occupation by a large U.S. force could cost more than $272 billion.

posted 10-02-2002 12:50 AM               

B-2 Bombers Would Use British Island

By SCOTT CHARTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS

KNOB NOSTER, Mo.- The commander of the nation's B-2 stealth bombers said Tuesday he expects to again use a British island in the Indian Ocean as a base for the radar-evading planes if the United States attacks Iraq.

The island, Diego Garcia, was a stopover point for B-2s returning from last fall's initial wave of bombing in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Through "political channels," the U.S. military's needs "are well-articulated to the United Kingdom," Col. Doug Raaberg said of Diego Garcia's availability.

The nation's 21 B-2s are headquartered at Whiteman Air Force Base, about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City. Raaberg assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing in April.

During the opening days of last fall's air war, the batwing bombers set a record for history's longest combat flight - 44 hours. The flights included a brief stop on Diego Garcia, the B-2 engines running constantly, to take on fresh two-man crews for the return to Missouri.

Stops at forward bases allow the $1.3 billion planes - the world's most expensive aircraft - to receive repairs and maintenance without long trips home to Missouri.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/oct/01/100105376.html

posted 10-02-2002 08:12 PM               

New Mission Launched in Afghanistan

By MATT KELLEY

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON- In the largest ground operation in Afghanistan in six months, up to 2,000 U.S. Army troops are searching the mountains of southeastern Afghanistan for Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts.

The troops from the 82nd Airborne are part of a new strategy that puts more regular soldiers into the hunt for enemy fighters while lessening the strain on special forces units that could be needed for a war in Iraq.

The Army soldiers are combing an area of Afghanistan's Paktia province that borders Pakistan and has long been a focus of U.S. efforts to rid the country of members of the terrorist network and its Taliban allies. The region has been the scene of clashes between rival warlords and scattered attacks on U.S. soldiers.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai suggested during a visit to Qatar over the weekend that deposed Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar might be hiding along the Pakistani border.

"We believe it's a target-rich environment," said Col. Martin Schweizter, the operation's commander. Army soldiers have questioned six suspects and uncovered several small caches of weapons during searches so far.

The operation, dubbed "Alamo Sweep," is the largest since Operation Anaconda in March and is expected to continue for several weeks at least.

The new operation is the most visible part of a shift in tactics for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The large number of conventional troops replace smaller, more clandestine special forces units.

Military commanders say the show of force means larger numbers of troops can move in more quickly if Taliban or al-Qaida fighters are found. The 82nd Airborne units are using Apache helicopter gunships and Black Hawk helicopters carrying troops to swoop into remote areas where enemy activity is suspected.

Special forces units are still in Afghanistan and searching for the enemy; one such unit - acting on a tip from a local governor - uncovered more than 500,000 rounds of small-arms ammunition in central Afghanistan on Tuesday.

Top military commanders and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met in August to discuss possible changes to special operations forces' role in the war on terrorism. Besides being the main ground force in Afghanistan, special operations units also have trained anti-terrorism forces in the Philippines, Yemen and the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

At the August meeting, Gen. Charles R. Holland of the Special Operations Command outlined his ideas to use special forces to help in the hunt for al-Qaida operatives worldwide. Having regular troops take over much of the search inside Afghanistan could free up some special forces units for duty elsewhere - or for some much-needed rest.

Special forces troops also are expected to play a prominent role in any U.S. military action against Iraq. The elite soldiers could be used for missions including finding and destroying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and guiding U.S. bombs to the correct targets.

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2002/oct/02/100207623.html

____________________________________________________________________

Today: October 02, 2002 at 12:10:15 PDT

Americans Ponder War Prospects

By DAVID CRARY

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The young soldiers at upstate New York's Fort Drum are ready to fight in Iraq. A preacher near their base prays those orders won't come.

Out in Ohio, a man who flew 35 combat missions against Nazi Germany ponders the prospect of a new war and says, "I'd go a little bit slow."

While the ultimate decision on attacking Iraq will be made by the powerful in Washington, citizens elsewhere are engaged in a distinctively American tradition - debating in public forums and private thoughts whether going to war is wise.

On the fringes, some Americans wish a war against Saddam Hussein had already started; others oppose U.S. military action of almost any type. But in dozens of interviews conducted across the nation by Associated Press reporters, most people - like Pam Gillispie of Sioux Falls, S.D. - sensed that the choices facing their leaders are complex.

"We need to protect ourselves," said Gillispie, 52, who grew up in the Vietnam era, and has a 22-year-old son. "At the same time, I hate the thought of going to war. I just want to be ready. I would hate to see another 9-11."

In Athens, Ohio, 82-year-old John Jones, the World War II veteran, has been working hard at keeping up with Iraq-related news.

"I'd like to see the United Nations unified behind us, rather than just the United States and England," he said. "If we get the U.N. behind us, it would be all right to go into an all-out conflict. Until then, I'd go a little bit slow."

Jones said he has noted an occasional gap in the rhetoric of the Bush administration and some military commanders. "The political people are pushing, and the military are saying hold back a little," Jones said. "That gives me pause."

At Fort Drum in northern New York, some active-duty soldiers suggested war was necessary.

"The U.N. has given Saddam enough chances," said Pfc. Brent Litchard of North Umberland, Pa., who is convinced Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

"We just can't sit around and wait for him to use them." Lindsay Forfa, a private from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said she recently got married, "so personally I'm not looking forward to the possibility of being deployed to Iraq." "But I think the United States has to take control of the situation," she said.

"Saddam is a terrorist in every way." Sgt. Alex Meek of Red Oak, Iowa, said he was "impartial" about whether war should start, but added, "If the president tells me to do my job, I'm going to be one of the first ones to jump up and say, 'Ready!'"

In nearby Watertown, N.Y., Jehovah's Witness preacher Armand DeBardelaben suspects war is inevitable, but hopes he is wrong. "Any time you have war, people die," he said.

"I don't want anyone to die." DeAnna Tonak, 18, of Centerline, Mich., is a student at the University of Michigan's Dearborn campus and worries that some fellow students might have to fight if war breaks out.

She also fears war would raise the danger of terrorist attacks in the United States.

"This is going to be a war fought here," Tonak said. "There will be bloodshed in this country."

In South Dakota, the Iraq debate has particular resonance because of the pivotal role of native son Tom Daschle, who as leader of the Senate's Democratic majority, has sometimes differed with President Bush.

Stan Lorenz, 51, a Sioux Falls businessman, voted for Bush and will stand by him in the event of war.

"That's why we elect a president," Lorenz said. "Whatever he decides, I guess I would support it."

But Morris Oakie, an American Indian from Sioux Falls, said the United States would risk overextending itself by invading Iraq. "It's kind of dumb," said Oakie, 27. "We're already dealing with another problem on terrorism. I don't know why the president would get himself into a bigger hole than the one he's already in."

At a bar in Des Moines, Iowa, engineer Mike Hoffmann, 47, said war with Iraq was overdue.

"We should have finished it the first time," he said, referring to the Gulf War.

By contrast, Josh Armbruster, 25, a Des Moines chef, was skeptical of Bush's motives.

"It sounds more like he's trying to do what his dad didn't quite do," Armbruster said. "The president's calling anybody who doesn't support the war un-American - give me a break."

In Seattle, Chinese immigrant Pokow Chun, 73, said she lived through Japan's invasion of China in 1937, and wishes the United States would decide against invading Iraq.

"I saw the result of war," she said. "It's horrible spending all our time fighting each other."

Another immigrant, Iraq-born Ala Faik, 50, of Ann Arbor, Mich., also hopes bloodshed can be avoided, but not at all costs. Saddam, he said, "is a war criminal who needs to be removed."

posted 10-02-2002 09:53 PM            

nuff' said.

posted 10-02-2002 10:00 PM            

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

CONTRIBUTORS TO 2000 REPORT
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about. --The Anlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 2002

Need To Know

Bush Blueprint For World Domination? "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (PNAC, 2000)

1992 Contribution To The Above By Wolfowitz (now Deputy Sec. of Defense) And Libby (now Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security), Sept. 10,2002

Analysis The Politics Behind The PNAC Study (Starts at paragraph 37.), Sept. 11,2002

posted 10-02-2002 10:38 PM            

US ready for Thanksgiving strike

By Tony Allen-Mills and Stephen Grey

AMERICAN military commanders are being warned a US-led attack on Iraq could begin by the Thanksgiving holiday on November 28, according to military and diplomatic sources in Washington and other allied capitals.

The looming row at the UN over the proposed text of a new ultimatum to Iraq has heightened international concern US President George W. Bush may be engineering a breakdown in diplomatic negotiations ahead of an early strike on Baghdad.

European and other diplomats complained at the weekend that the British-US text for a tough new security council resolution on the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq was so aggressive that it was "designed to be rejected".

The draft resolution obliges Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to allow inspectors to go anywhere they liked at any time. It ends previously agreed restrictions on UN visits to presidential palaces and other sites that the Iraqis have claimed as off-limits.

One Washington source said: "It will be the equivalent of UN inspectors arriving at Buckingham Palace at 2am and inviting the Queen to show them her cellars."

The draft gives Baghdad up to 30 days to provide a "full, final and complete declaration" of Mr Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and authorises "all necessary means" to enforce his compliance.

It effectively grants Washington permission to go to war if Mr Hussein is found to have lied or if he attempts to obstruct inspectors.

One senior official in Washington predicted weapons inspectors would never go back to Baghdad. Either the UN Security Council would try to weaken the draft to the point where it became unacceptable to Washington, the official said, or the resolution would require a degree of co-operation Mr Hussein could never accept.

Either way, war fever has intensified at the Pentagon, where planners are fine-tuning what many military experts expect to be a high-speed, high-intensity deployment of forces ready to advance on to Iraqi soil within three weeks of an order from Mr Bush.

The diplomatic struggle to persuade France, Russia and China to endorse an aggressive resolution appears to have persuaded Mr Bush's hawkish advisers that the longer the inspections issue drags on, the harder it will be to justify an attack.

"The instinctive position that the Americans are coming from is that they don't like the UN, they don't like inspections, they think Saddam has had his chance and that you can't eliminate weapons of mass destruction without eliminating Saddam," one European diplomat said.

After a series of Pentagon leaks about US troop movements and other military preparations, US officials acknowledged last week that the stealthy build-up amounted to "prudent planning" in case the President ordered an early attack.

A growing number of military experts believes the timetable points to Thanksgiving. It may take two more weeks of intensive lobbying before the UN agrees a new resolution; by mid-October, Mr Bush also should have obtained formal approval from the US Congress for action against Iraq.

If the UN resolution is approved, Mr Hussein will have seven days to accept its terms and another 23 days to identify his weapons programs. US officials seem convinced that whether or not Mr Hussein chooses to co-operate, he is certain to lie about the status of his weapons.

If he fails to list a suspect site or to declare a banned weapon, and US intelligence can provide the evidence, Washington will have a pretext to strike.

Soon after the US's mid-term elections on November 5, Mr Bush could sign an executive order declaring war on Iraq.

According to John Pike, the head of globalsecurity.org and a respected analyst, the Pentagon needs only 10 days to ready its weapons and 10 more days to airlift a preliminary strike force to the region. "The posture is to go to war by the end of November," he said.

posted 10-03-2002 03:40 PM            

Allies Drop Leaflets Warning Iraqis
Thu Oct 3, 3:32 PM ET

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a direct message to Iraqi troops, allied forces dropped thousands of leaflets over the southern no-fly zone in Iraq warning gunners to stop firing on U.S. and British patrol planes.

AP Photo

Iraqi forces responded by firing on aircraft delivering the leaflets. That led allied forces to bomb an air defense operations center, U.S. Central Command officials said.

The leaflet drop was the first known direct warning from the Pentagon to Iraq's military rank and file in the Bush administration's campaign to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Defense officials said it was not directly related to another leaflet effort in which the Pentagon plans to warn Iraqi officers against firing chemical or biological weapons in the event of U.S. military action to remove Saddam.

The allied retaliation brought to 46 the number of "strike days" reported this year by the coalition force that patrols zones set up to protect Iraqi minorities following the 1991 Gulf War. On some days, more than one area is bombed.

Defense officials said coalition aircraft dropped 120,000 leaflets depicting a jet bombing a missile launcher and a radar site with the message: "Iraqi ADA (air defense artillery) Beware! Don't track or fire on coalition aircraft!"

The back side of the leaflet had another message. "The destruction experienced by your colleagues in other air defense locations is a response to your continuing aggression toward planes of the coalition forces," leaflets written in Arabic said.

"No tracking or firing on these aircraft will be tolerated. You could be next," said an English translation released by defense officials.

"We were telling them 'Don't shoot at us or we'll shoot back,'" said Navy Commander Frank Merriman, a spokesman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla. "And they were shooting at that aircraft that was dropping the leaflets."

He said a similar leaflet drop was done in October to try to halt the firing on patrol planes. That effort was not publicly disclosed until Thursday.

Another defense official said Thursday's action was not related to any possible war with Iraq, portraying it as done periodically to remind Iraqi gunners that they target coalition planes at their peril.

Central Command said the strike came after Iraq air defenses fired anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles at coalition aircraft.

The planes used precision-guided weapons against the operations center and air defense headquarters for the sector near Tallil, about 160 miles southeast of Baghdad, according to a Central Command statement. There was no immediate damage assessment.

Iraq considers the patrols a violation of its sovereignty and frequently shoots at the planes. In response, coalition pilots try to bomb Iraqi air defense systems.

Coalition strikes are not necessarily aimed at the place or equipment used to target them, though officials said Thursday's was. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld disclosed recently that he has ordered that pilots attack command and communications links in Iraq's air defense network rather than the guns and radars used to target or shoot at pilots.

The goal of the new approach, more than a decade after enforcement of the no-fly zones began, is to reduce dangers to the pilots while increasing the damage to an air defense system that has grown more sophisticated.

The strike was in the southern zone, set up to protect Shiite Muslims. The northern zone was set up to protect the Kurdish population. Both groups were given protection after unsuccessfully revolting against Saddam.

___

posted 10-03-2002 04:14 PM            

A Hellhole, Not A Hospital

Connecticut Now October 3, 2002

One of the stated purposes of the Department of Veterans Affairs is "to deliver a responsive system of inpatient and long-term health care and clinical support to Connecticut's veterans."

It's apparent that the Rowland administration is not taking that mission seriously. A report that was released recently by the state Department of Public Health is a stunning indictment of conditions at the Veterans Home and Hospital in Rocky Hill.

Based on three unannounced visits in July, DPH officials documented examples of health and safety code violations that would make your stomach churn: medication dispensed improperly, missing patient charts, soiled bathroom facilities and restrooms that reeked of urine, drugs stored in unlocked areas, refrigerated food that was uncovered and undated, blocked automatic sprinkler heads, insufficient fire extinguishers, cigarette butts on the floors, TVs that didn't work for months and broken-down elevators.

But that wasn't the worst of it, not by far. The most egregious problems were the inadequate numbers of physicians and nurses on hand, excessive use of restraints and the tardy reporting of illnesses. Actually, tardy is a dramatic understatement. One patient wasn't told that he had tested positive for the HIV virus for eight months, a violation of state law.

Recently, a group of veterans and nurses gathered at the Rocky Hill site to protest the awful conditions. They complained that the understaffing - which has gone on for two years - has led to overworked and exhausted nurses. Only two physicians are assigned to the hospital, just one of whom works directly with patients. The veterans home has beds for 300 patients but doesn't have any doctors on duty.

One veteran called the place "the pits." A nurse said the below-average standard of care "broke her heart." The protestors said it appears as though the Rowland administration wants to close the facility.

Veterans Affairs Commissioner Eugene Migliaro has promised that improvements will be made. Seeing is believing. This is the second time the hospital has been cited by the public health department for code violations.

posted 10-03-2002 06:37 PM            

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A Korean-American protesting against the North Korean government emptied a seven-shot pistol in front of U.N. headquarters Thursday, hitting several offices but injuring no one, authorities said.

The gunman was identified as Steve Kim, a naturalized U.S. citizen working at a U.S. post office in Des Plaines, Ill. FBI spokesman Jim Margolin said Kim was born in 1945 and that agents were trying to confirm he was born in Korea.

The shooting occurred at 1:10 p.m. as the Security Council was meeting on Iraq and Secretary-General Kofi Annan was holding talks with the Cypriot leaders in his office on the 38th floor.

U.S. Secret Service agents protecting visiting Cyprus President Glafcos Clerides apprehended Kim in the compound just outside the building.

``The first people to reach this individual were U.S. secret service personnel,'' U.N. security chief Michael McCann said. The agents were assisted moments later by members of a State Department protective detail also on site as well as U.N. security.

Margolin, of the FBI, said Kim was expected to be arraigned in federal court in Manhattan for violation of the protection of foreign officials act although specific charges have yet to be determined. The protect act is a federal law that establishes protections for visiting dignitaries.

The shots, fired from a Smith & Wesson pistol, hit a women's restroom on the 18th and an American Express office on the 20th floor of the U.N. Secretariat building. McCann said several shots narrowly missed U.N. employees inside the building.

Kim, wearing a blue shirt and brown pants, entered the U.N. compound by jumping over a poorly guarded fence surrounding U.N. headquarters. He walked up to the building, shot seven times in the air and then dropped the pistol on the ground, witnesses and security officials said.

He then tossed out a stack of leaflets from a small black bag before he put his hands up against a wall and awaited capture.

The leaflets, found by reporters near the scene, were handwritten in English with many misspellings and were addressed to ``all people who love freedom and justice.''

``In a shinning and civilized 21st century, most people in the world enjoying peace and freedom. North Korea however is groaning under the weight of starvation and dictatorial suppression. They don't have even the most basic of human rights since all things body and spirit plants and plows belong to one named greatest general Kim Jong Il,'' it said.

It was signed: ``A citizen of UN, Steve Kim, Oct. 2, 2002.''

President Bush has accused North Korea of being part of an ``axis of evil.'' The communist country has been in an economic crisis since the collapse of its main benefactor, the Soviet Union, almost 11 years ago. The peak of the crisis occurred in 1996-97 when, according to some experts, as many as 2 million people starved to death.

Kim was questioned by U.S. law enforcement authorities before being transferred to FBI custody and taken out of U.N. headquarters 90 minutes after the shooting.

``He had a gun. He shot in the air. I heard about five to six shots, and then he dropped the gun,'' said U.N. spokeswoman Hua Jiang, who witnessed the incident from the window of her fourth-floor office.

Michael Hovey, the executive director of The Hague Appeal for Peace, ran into the shooter as he was leaving the U.N. building. Hovey said he saw Kim empty the pistol.

``Then he just walked over to the wall, grabbed some papers, threw them in the air and then sat down. Within a minute the security guards surrounded him,'' Hovey told The Associated Press.

The United Nations was conducting floor-to-floor searches for more bullets after the shooting.

New York City police temporarily sealed off First Avenue in front the United Nations building and cleared the street of bystanders while the United Nations sealed off the sprawling U.N. complex which houses the Security Council, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's offices and the General Assembly.

McCann, the U.N. security chief, said security was supposed to have been beefed up after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but his office has been slow in hiring new recruits.

The U.N. headquarters overlooking Manhattan's East River was a terrorist target following the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And in a videotaped address aired in November, Osama bin Laden accused the world body of siding with the United States and called Annan a ``criminal.''

posted 10-04-2002 02:26 AM            

By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The Rev. Jerry Falwell says "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" in an interview to be broadcast Sunday on the CBS program "60 Minutes."

The conservative Baptist minister tells correspondent Bob Simon he has concluded from reading Muslim and non-Muslim writers that Islam's prophet "was a — a violent man, a man of war."

"Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses," Falwell says. "I think Muhammad set an opposite example."

CBS released a partial transcript of the interview Thursday. Falwell's comments occur in a segment about American conservative Christians' political support for Israel.

Falwell stood by his opinion in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. He said Simon asked directly whether Falwell considered Muhammad a terrorist and he tried to reply honestly. The minister said he would never state his opinion in a sermon or book.

"I've said often and many places that most Muslims are people of peace and want peace and tranquility for their families and abhor terrorism," Falwell said. "Islam, like most faiths, has a fringe of radicals who carry on bloodshed wherever they are. They do not represent Islam."

Other conservative Protestant clergy have made sharply critical remarks about Islam and Muhammad in the past year. They include Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and successor, TV evangelist Pat Robertson and leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention.

In response to Falwell's remarks, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relation in Washington, said: "Anybody is free to be a bigot if they want to. What really concerns us is the lack of reaction by mainstream religious and political leaders, who say nothing when these bigots voice these attacks."

Hooper noted that Falwell and Robertson will speak at next week's CHRISTIAN COALITIAN convention in Washington ALONGSIDE HOUSE MAJORTY WHIP TOM DeLAY and other politicians.

"How can these elected representatives legitimize this kind of hate speech by appearing on the same platform with Islamophobes and Muslim-bashers?" Hooper asked.

Falwell was widely criticized last year after he said on Robertson's TV show that pagans, abortionists, feminists, homosexuals and civil liberties groups had secularized the nation and helped the Sept. 11 attacks happen. Falwell later apologized.

posted 10-04-2002 07:27 AM            

MANIFEST DESTINY

By David Podvin

American foreign policy is revisiting the most brutal period in our history. George W. Bush has resurrected the scourge of Manifest Destiny, a depraved philosophy that states we are morally compelled by God Almighty to kill weaker people and steal their land. There is no scriptural evidence that this is the covenant of Jehovah or Jesus or Mohammad or Buddha; the God whose will is now being carried out more closely resembles Attila the Hun. The stated desire for world domination has some observers comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler. It is a comparison that is entirely inappropriate - Hitler did not pretend to love the innocent civilians he was slaughtering.

On the home front, there is also an unwelcome blast from the past. As has happened so many times in American history, conservatives are expediently detecting the scent of treason in the air. The moon is full, and the blood is rising in the wolf. Right-wingers are now working themselves into the irrational, frenzied state that precedes the hunt, lustfully anticipating the carnage they are about to inflict. Yet again, conservatives are patriotically preparing to lay waste to their natural born prey: the evil ones amongst us who endanger this sacred land by failing to conform to the Lord’s fascist agenda.

Having fostered imperialism abroad and McCarthyism at home, and with the stock market teetering on the edge of collapse, Bush is closing in on a Trifecta for the ages. Add the fact that he previously prevented blacks from voting, throw in the current discrimination against citizens who physically resemble the enemy, and Bush has delivered a reprise of the worst of twentieth century America – all deftly compressed into less than two years

The Bush record is a logical extension of what happened in 2000. The theft of that election was not just a power grab – it was a policy statement by someone who has contempt for democracy and the rule of law. The inevitable result is the introduction of the Bush Doctrine. It declares that, while the United States would prefer to behave legally, "We will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting pre-emptively." The Bush Doctrine is the latest incarnation of the Manson Doctrine, which clearly states, “I reserve the right to kill you if I feel like it.”

This is not the best of America.

America at its best exports freedom and democracy, not death and destruction. One of the shining moments in our history occurred when the Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe, even the part of Europe that had just tried to kill us. After defeating our enemies, we fed them and then helped to create free societies in which they could thrive. As a result, we turned adversaries into allies. Contrast this approach with the current situation in Afghanistan, where Bush has replaced the Taliban with thugs of his own and left the peasants to fend for themselves - without food or shelter - by growing opium poppies.

America at its best allows people to read library books without having the Attorney General pass judgment on their selections, and go to museums without being monitored by FBI agents, and publicly demonstrate against government policy without being harassed.

The best of America is George Washington declining to become king because he preferred to live as an equal rather than rule as a sovereign. This stands in sharp contrast to the current George, who attempts to rule as a sovereign even though he fails to qualify as an equal.

The best of America is Abraham Lincoln imploring his countrymen to avoid war by listening to the better angels of their nature. It is quite different than imploring Congress to slash Medicare benefits for old Americans in order to help underwrite the cost of sending young Americans off to die.

The best of America is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., risking and ultimately sacrificing his own life so that others could be free at last. Personal sacrifice is alien to the man who now insists that our country pay a huge toll in blood and treasure to satiate the greed of his campaign contributors.

And then there is the America that is led by George W. Bush. While the litany of ways in which Bush has disgraced our nation is seemingly endless, one example is especially compelling. Under Bush, self-proclaimed child of God, America is currently torturing foreign nationals who are suspected of committing terrorism. This return to the caves is cheered by the ruling class and their echoes in the mainstream media, who emphasize that our sadism is different than that of Torquemada and Idi Amin because we are the good guys. The conduct of the Bush administration must always be viewed through this prism, because merely looking at the facts as they exist would lead a moral person to some very troubling and socially unacceptable conclusions. The prevailing wisdom among America’s elite opinion makers is that torturing captured foes is an unpleasant but essential part of our noble fight against barbarism.

The dungeon also beckons indigenous enemies of the state. Bush is petitioning the courts to permit “coercive interrogations” of American citizens who are not even accused of terrorism. The current descent into totalitarian savagery qualifies as one of those many things that are questioned only by T-R-A-I-T-O-R-S.

There is an ongoing struggle between the good America and the bad. It was seen when Dalton Trumbo courageously imperiled his career by refusing to betray his friends before the House Un-American Activities Committee, while Ronald Reagan cravenly informed on law-abiding people in order to save his own skin. It is seen when Congressman Jim McDermott – who served with distinction in the United States Navy in Vietnam – desperately tries to avert an avoidable war because he doesn’t want innocent people on either side to die, while Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott – who served with distinction in the Hair Club For Men in Mississippi and a leading Hawk in the Christian Coalition – enthusiastically advocates sending other people’s children off to lose their lives for Exxon Mobil.

To Bush and his followers, dissent is indistinguishable from treason. The concept of “freedom and justice for all” never really caught on with conservatives, who have always seen more virtue in “might makes right”. Their philosophy is, ironically enough, Darwinism in its purest form. Conservatives govern on the basis that a well-ordered social structure requires the powerful to strengthen their dominance over the weak. No matter how much Bush tries to pretty up this vulgar philosophy with his mangled rhetoric, compassionate conservatism can ultimately be distilled to its essence: “You do as I say, and no one gets hurt.” This applies equally to the people in the Middle East and the people in the Middle West. America is now being governed by Corleone family values, with Fredo calling the shots.

It has always been true that, when the commander-in-chief rings the war bell, many Americans start drooling. We depend on the personal honor of our leader not to abuse this Pavlovian power. If the occupant of the White House has no honor, then the lone superpower is vulnerable to fits of megalomania. The same ignorant philosophy that insisted, “What’s Good For General Motors Is Good For America” now gives us, “What’s Good For America Is Good For The World.” The world isn’t so sure, so it’s time to lock and load.

The war against terrorism is a worthy one; a good first step would be to get a competent commander-in-chief who prioritizes increasing national security over increasing the oil depreciation allowance. In any case, our greatest struggle is not with dictators or terrorists; it is an internal battle. Will we embrace the principles we constantly claim to cherish, or succumb to the base instincts that are so easily manipulated by demagogues?

Ultimately, the American people will decide whether war is better than peace and conformity is better than freedom. Bush can insist on creating Pax Americana, but he has not consolidated enough power – yet – to act in defiance of an aroused public. If the people of this country do not yearn for a world that exists only to increase the profits of oil companies and defense contractors, then we must take a stand. If we do not want to live in a nation where opposing perpetual war is an act of sedition, then we must register that view at the ballot box.

The crucial yet unspoken issue in the upcoming election is whether Manifest Destiny and McCarthyism were disasters that are best left to the dustbin of history, or whether they are blueprints for governing the United States in the twenty-first century. The Republicans have embraced Bush’s determination to build an empire in the name of all that is holy, while disdaining Benjamin Franklin’s admonition against trading essential liberty for temporary safety. The Democrats have shown no inclination to rule the world, and this alone is enough to make them virtuous by comparison.

The events of the past two years have clearly proven that, in contemporary politics, the lesser of two evils is significantly less evil. There is definitely more than a dime’s worth of difference between the two major political parties: one of them wants the government of the United States to forcefully eradicate dissent wherever it exists, and the other doesn’t.

posted 10-04-2002 03:06 PM            

http://www.votermarch.org/events.htm

posted 10-04-2002 03:14 PM            

2002-09-19

By now, the remnants of the extraordinarily brief debate over whether the United States should wage war on Iraq have all but disappeared, replaced by a much narrower discussion over the means and timing by which we will do so. Although administration officials at all levels continue to repeat the absurd lie that President Bush "has not made up his mind" about whether he is going to launch a war, just as months ago they said over and over that there was no war plan "on the President's desk" (it must have been on the coffee table), there is no mistaking their intentions. Congress may wring its hands and argue over details, but within the administration the debate is over, and the war has already begun.

When Iraq told the UN it would allow weapons inspections to resume, the response from the White House could only be described as disappointed. Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was asked whether the Pentagon envisioned and planned for a scenario in which Iraq was disarmed, but that did not involve full-scale war. Rumsfeld was stumped - he had obviously not considered the possibility that we wouldn't be launching a war - and after a long pause muttered something about Saddam high-tailing it out of town. Rumsfeld and the chorus of chicken hawks (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle et al) remind one of nothing so much as addicts waiting for a fix, palms sweaty, tapping their feet frantically, begging "C'mon, man, c'mon, drop the bombs!" Regardless of the moves the Iraqi government makes, whether inspections begin or not, whatever the UN resolves, there is no doubt that Bush will have his war.

So it might behoove us to prepare ourselves for what awaits. While events are somewhat difficult to predict, we may be reasonably certain of a few developments to come:

* Americans will die. How many depends on a number of factors, including the approach our military takes, how many friendly fire incidents there are, how long Saddam's army remains loyal, and whether it retreats to fight in the streets of Baghdad. But American soldiers will die.

* Many, many Iraqi civilians will die. After the invasion starts, Bush will aver, as his father did, that he has no argument with the Iraqi people, even as they are torn to shreds by our bombs targeting the "command and control" and "strategic targets" of the Iraqi military and civilian infrastructure, many of which are located regrettably close to civilian population centers. Whether the number of Iraqi civilian deaths numbers in the hundreds of thousands or merely tens of thousands depends on the tactics employed by our military commanders, but the prevailing American strategy of "overwhelming force" makes higher numbers more likely.

* There will be some sort of attack on Israel. While in 1991 Saddam bombed Israel in an attempt to provoke retaliation and thus draw Arab governments to his side, in this case he will do the same but for a different reason. By being so clear that he wants Saddam's head on a pike, Bush has painted the Iraqi leader into a corner. For years, whatever chemical and biological weapons Saddam has have laid waiting. Knowing his death is imminent, he will lash out with whatever weapons he has at the one target that will assure his heroic place in Arab history - the Jews.

* The likelihood of future terrorist attacks will increase. The only person more pleased than George W. Bush when the invasion begins will be Osama Bin Laden. After all, Bin Laden has tried to convince the Muslim world that what is required is a holy war in which Islam battles the west. His job recruiting disaffected young people to submit their lives to the goal of murdering Americans will only become easier as images of dead Iraqis are transmitted around the world and Arabs suffer yet another humiliation at the hands of the west.

* More Taliban-style regimes may emerge. The greatest internal threat to fragile Arab governments are home-grown fundamentalist Islamic movements. As some have pointed out, Arab humiliation after the Six-Day War in 1967 resulted in the overthrow of Arab governments and the emergence of dictators like Hafez Assad in Syria and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Islamist movements are waiting for their moment; the anger occasioned by the US overthrowing an Arab government may well provide it for them.

* The war will cost money - lots of it. Bush's chief economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, told the Wall Street Journal that an invasion of Iraq will cost somewhere between $100 billion and $200 billion - that means between $350 and $700 for every man, woman and child in America. You might want to start saving now.

* The United States will be occupying Iraq for years to come. Whether it will be decades or merely years is uncertain, but American soldiers will be patrolling the streets of Baghdad for a good long time. The idea popular in the Bush administration - that we'll march in, everyone will pop the champagne corks, there will be a stable democratic government installed and in a few months we'll be able to leave - is so patently ridiculous one must question the sanity of anyone who adheres to it.

So off to war we go. But with an all-volunteer army and a military organized around the principle of minimizing our casualties while maximizing those of the unfortunate peoples we are obliterating, we won't feel the consequences too deeply, at least at first. Sure, oil prices will rise and the country's economy will worsen, but all will agree that these developments should be blamed on someone other than those ruling the nation. And the mayhem and suffering in far off lands will be seen as a regrettable consequence of our noble efforts to make the world safer.

Why exactly did the administration wait until nearly two years into its tenure to begin warning that we had to attack Iraq, now now now? White House chief of staff Andrew Card explained that they had to wait until after Labor Day to start beating the war drums: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." Karl Rove added that it wouldn't look right to initiate a war while the president was on one of his many lengthy vacations. That weekend, Dick Cheney declared it "reprehensible" that anyone would dare to suggest what Card and Rove had confirmed to be true, "that somehow, you know, we husbanded this and we waited." Press Secretary Ari Fleischer echoed the attack: "Even the suggestion that the timing of something so serious could be done for political reasons is reprehensible." But it is certainly convenient that Iraq has knocked off the front pages the administration's abject failure in nearly everything else it has done - the reemergence of chaos in Afghanistan, the ballooning deficit, the faltering economy, their intimate ties to corporate criminals, Bush and Cheney's own shady behavior in business, the failure to deliver on Bush's promise of prescription drug benefits, his retreat on his plan to privatize Social Security. One has to admire their political skill - after all, Bush's popularity remains high despite the fact that his presidency is little more than a string of disasters.

As David Armstrong recently detailed in Harper's, in the late days of the first Bush administration, Dick Cheney and his aides set out a blueprint for a true Pax Americana. The dryly titled Defense Planning Guidance, which was updated after the current administration brought back the old crowd, argued that the United States should use its overwhelming military power not only to deter threats but to destroy them through preemptive wars, cementing our position as global hegemon. The plan is finally coming to fruition. Had you asked Bush and Cheney a year and a half ago whether they would like terrorists to murder 3000 Americans, they would doubtless have said no, but nonetheless September 11 has been nothing but a boon for them on all fronts. In addition to all the political benefits, they managed to increase the Pentagon's budget to a mind-boggling $379 billion per year (at a time when the US already accounts for 36% of the entire world's military spending) and are proceeding with what will no doubt be only the first of a series of military adventures with barely a peep from the alleged opposition party, cowed by the invocation of the magical word "terrorism," at whose mention all questioning of our Great Leader vanishes.

By all accounts, Bush's war will begin soon, perhaps some time shortly after the first of the year. But it will not end when he leaves office. We will be picking up the pieces - both at home and in the middle east - for years to come.

posted 10-04-2002 03:17 PM            

The American Gulf War Veterans Association (AGWVA) now calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In response to questioning by Sen. Robert C. Byrd, (D-WV), Rumsfeld denied any knowledge that the United States had shipped biological weapons to Iraq during the 1980’s. Rumsfeld was addressing the Armed Services Committee last week, when he stated that he “…had no knowledge of any such shipments and doubted that they ever occurred.”

There is no disputing the evidence that the U.S. provided bacteria and viruses as evidenced by Senate Report 103-900, “United States Dual-Use Exports To Iraq And Their Impact On the Health of The Persian Gulf War Veterans,” dated May 25,1994, chaired by Sen. Donald Riegle (D-MI) of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. This Senate report was available to all senators and listed among other items, Bacillus Anthracis, (anthrax) Clostridium botulinum, and West Nile Fever Virus as pathogens that were shipped to Iraq in the 1980’s with the full knowledge of the Department of Commerce and the CDC.
http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/r_1_2.html#exports

There is no question that the Secretary of Defense must be informed and up to date with information about a potential military enemy and his military capabilities. Mr. Rumsfeld’s statements demonstrate that this is clearly not the case.

If our Secretary of Defense is unaware of the sales of biological materials to a country with which we are about to go to war, or if he is in denial over the fact that these sales occurred, the AGWVA believes that he represents a clear and present danger to the lives of our military, our country, and the American people, and should be considered a very serious threat to the national security. It is for this reason that the AGWVA calls for his resignation and removal from office.