WILL BUSH ATTACK IRAQ?
By Jack A. Smith
Will nearly total opposition from Washington's international allies, serious splits within U.S. ruling circles, and the growth of the domestic antiwar movement suffice to prevent President George Bush from launching an aggressive, preemptive war against Iraq?
Not yet, but maybe. The strength of this swiftly gathering dissent represents an unexpected obstacle to White House plans to violently overthrow and replace the Baghdad government with a client regime subordinate to its dictates. But the neoconservative cabal directing Bush administration policy has launched a public relations counterattack -- largely to secure domestic public opinion in support of yet another war -- based on a gross exaggeration of the potential "terrorist threat" from Iraq.
In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars Aug. 26, advertised as the Bush administration's rationale for a new war, Vice President Dick Cheney attempted to mislead and frighten the American people into supporting an unprovoked attack on Iraq. He depicted this relatively small, languishing country of 23 million people, decimated by 11 years of draconian U.S. sanctions that have taken approximately 1.5 million lives, as a virtual superstate, implicitly as powerful as the former USSR at its zenith. The government of President Saddam Hussein, he said, is about to "seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.... There is no doubt Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." Cheney's comments exceeded some of the worst anti-Soviet diatribes of the Cold War years.
As is the Republican regime's custom, Cheney offered not a sliver of proof to support his alarming allegations, cultivating the strong suspicion that they are fabrications intended to coerce both allies and domestic public opinion into supporting a new military adventure. Following the tragic events of last Sept. 11, administration sources advanced the notion that Iraq was implicated in the terror attacks against the Pentagon and World Trade Center -- without proof. Soon after, it was implied that Baghdad was behind the anthrax scare -- without proof. In more recent months, the White House has accused Iraq of producing and planning to deploy chemical-biological weapons -- without proof.
Now the administration is charging that the Hussein government plans to launch a nuclear war even though it has never presented evidence that Iraq possesses such weapons, delivery systems or intentions. The repeated administration allegation that Saddam Hussein is in any way associated with the Al Qaeda network is perhaps the most ludicrous charge of all. Al Qaeda despises Hussein because he is attempting to lead a modern secular society in contradiction to a fundamentalist state. Indeed, along with Bush and Cheney, Al Qaeda also calls for the overthrow of the Baghdad government.
In the end, all the administration's pretexts devolve to one premise -- get rid of Saddam Hussein, proof or not. "He is an evil man," intoned National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice speaking of Hussein Aug. 17, as though that subjective characterization alone justified a war. Urging swift action, with or without evidence of wrongdoing, she intoned, "History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world."
At this stage, bamboozled by relentless government propaganda, a majority of the American people support President Bush's expressed intention to launch a war to eliminate the Iraqi government, but this could dissipate. A Fox News poll in August "found that 69% of Americans support military action to remove Hussein while 22% oppose it (9% not sure)." Support drops to 52% "if it means thousands of American soldiers' lives would be lost." And it falls to 49% "if it means a war lasting up to five years." A Washington Post-ABC News poll in mid-August showed that 69% "supported taking some form of military action to force Hussein from power." This fell to 57% in case of a U.S. invasion of Iraq with ground troops, which 36% opposed. But if the war "were to produce significant U.S. casualties, support plummeted to 40% and opposition rose to 51%," according to the Washington Post.
Obviously, the Bush administration is aware that any confrontation beyond the rigidly circumscribed post-Vietnam syndrome wars the U.S. has favored in recent decades (overwhelming power against a disadvantaged adversary, short duration, few American casualties, and a non-conscript military) could produce negative political consequences. So far, Washington has expressed interest in four separate attack scenarios against a vastly weaker Iraq, engaging anywhere between 50,000-200,000 troops and relying primarily on decisive advantages in technology, communications and sophisticated weaponry. Even so, the Iraqi army would be a tough opponent when defending its own homeland, especially in the block-to-block defense of its cities. Speaking to reporters in Beirut Aug. 30, Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said that if Washington launched a war "Iraq will fight tooth and nail to defend its territory. Iraq is not Afghanistan and the U.S. administration is aware of that."
Until recently, the Bush administration was counting upon the international unity and domestic patriotism galvanized by its so-called war on terrorism to neutralize opposition to its larger intention to transform the tragedy of Sept. 11 into an exercise in empire-building abroad and far-right programs at home. Domestic opinion was controlled by frequent suggestions of impending terror attacks and daily injections of hyperpatriotism from the corporate mass media. The "opposition" Democratic Party's flag-waving capitulation to President Bush's conservative leadership in foreign, military and "homeland defense" affairs played directly into White House hands, conveying the impression to the American people that there was no alternative to the Bush-Cheney policy of endless wars, huge defense expenditures and sharp curtailments in civil liberties.
In recent weeks, however, two important developments have undermined Bush's merry military march to Baghdad and to other "axis of evil" targets if possible -- (1) unusually intense allied opposition and (2) an evolving conflict among those who rule America. In addition, these factors are energizing antiwar forces which are gearing up for massive protests against a war with Iraq.
First by ones and twos, then by the score with the approach of August, nearly all Washington's closest allies and war-on-terrorism coalition partners refused to be dragged into supporting a war against a country not remotely connected to Sept. 11 just to satisfy what had obviously become an obsession for the far-right warhawks surrounding a hubris-sodden president. Only Israel subscribes totally to Bush's aggressive intentions. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's inclination to prostrate himself before America's King George has been subverted by opposition within the political system back home. He may not be permitted to grovel on this issue. And no other country publicly backs what German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder termed Washington's military adventurism.
All the Arab countries, including those needed to supply airfields and other military support systems for an invasion, have expressed disapproval. A Saudi diplomat told the BBC Aug. 29, "There is a war in Afghanistan; a war between Israelis and Palestinians; a war against terrorism. We do not want another war in Iraq." Kuwait, which was invaded by Iraq in 1990, opposes a war. Iran, which was forced into a nearly decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s, opposes an attack on the Baghdad government. The Kurds in northern Iraq, with major grievances against Saddam Hussein, have taken steps to avoid entanglement in Washington's war planning.
Not one European ally supports a war to overthrow the Iraqi leader. Speaking out boldly Aug. 29, French President Jacques Chirac excoriated "attempts to legitimize the unilateral and preemptive use of force.... This runs contrary to France's vision of collective security, a vision that is based on cooperation among states, respect for the law and the authority of the Security Council." Most of these traditional U.S. allies support the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq but reject the concept of a preventive war. If there is to be a war, many insist, it must first be approved by the UN Security Council, which includes among its members France, Russia and China, each of which opposes a new war and enjoys veto rights. Britain's Blair government is now emphasizing the need for weapons inspectors and no longer promotes Bush's demand for "regime-change" -- an Orwellian euphemism for the violent overthrow of a sovereign government.
The dispute within the Bush administration over Iraq policy, which has been going on since last September, metamorphosed in August into a split within the right-wing and the ruling class in general. This is not a fight between war hawks and peace doves. In terms of Iraq and the demonized Saddam Hussein, there are hardly any doves in positions of influence or power in America. It is a battle among the hawks over the best means of asserting U.S. hegemony in the Middle East with its huge oil resources, and the most fruitful path to pursue the course of empire in this post-Soviet era of the single superpower. The struggle is taking place openly within the party in power. The leadership of the Democratic Party, likewise boasting an infestation of hawks, is watching from its roost, awaiting advantageous political winds before soaring aloft in whatever proves the most opportunist direction.
The administration's far right, led by Bush, Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, assisted by ultra-conservative veterans of the past Reagan-Bush administrations, believes the U.S. is so supremely dominant militarily, politically and economically that it has the right to pursue its narrow interests regardless of the views entertained by the rest of the world, including its closest allies. What this faction needed was a sufficient provocation for taking action and broad backing from the American people. The Sept. 11 catastrophe fulfilled this requirement.
The Bush administration's subsequent war on terrorism has accomplished little to disrupt the several hundred member Al Qaeda network, but it has used its mandate to invade and occupy Afghanistan, empowering another client government of its own choosing and acquiring permanent military bases throughout Central Asia. The next target for the far-right is Saddam Hussein, a former U.S. ally who might be blameless for Sept. 11 but cannot be forgiven -- especially by the Bush Dynasty -- for surviving the one-sided Persian Gulf war and killer sanctions. Destroying the Baghdad government will allow Washington to rule Iraq through a hand-picked regime, thus allowing the U.S. not just to purchase but to control the flow of oil in a country that is situated upon the second largest petroleum reserves in the world. Ousting Hussein -- even if the process is illegal and immoral -- will also constitute proof positive that any weaker country which stands up to Uncle Sam will be cut down by the most awesome military machine in history.
The newly vocal elite opposition to this administration policy, with few exceptions, does not dispute Washington's right to oust President Hussein or to wage a preemptive war, or an illegal or unjust war, or to the continual expansion of empire, for that matter. Nearly all these political figures (and they range from former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to House majority leader Dick Armey, to Sen. Chuck Hagel, to two key figures in the administration of President Bush the Elder -- former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Secretary of State James A Baker) are Republicans and are backed in their criticism by a number of other rightists, including National Review magazine, for example. A number of establishment newspapers appear to be tilting in the direction of these critics.
In general, these conservatives have joined forces with Secretary of State Colin Powell and some uniformed Pentagon leaders in insisting that the administration avoid a precipitous attack that might liquidate the international coalition of countries that support Washington's war on terrorism. In addition, they fear that Bush's war plans are reckless and may blow up in the administration's face, destroying the national consensus behind the war on terrorism and potentially generating a mass antiwar movement and a revival of the political left.
House Republican leader Armey, who is retiring after nine terms representing Texas, came closest of all these rightists to an antiwar position when he opposed Bush's war plans in these words in August: "My own view would be to just let him [Hussein] bluster...all he wants. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.... We Americans don't make unprovoked attacks against other nations." Armey's views were similar to those of the small libertarian sector of the Republican Party.
The arguments from Scowcroft and Baker are particularly important in terms of conservative politics because of their influence within the ruling class. Both of them remain close friends of former President Bush and were among the chief architects of the Persian Gulf War (along with Powell). Some commentators have suggested that the elder Bush may have encouraged his old friends as a means of pressuring the younger Bush to contrive a less adventurous policy.
Scowcroft fired his whiff of grapeshot across the White House lawn by publishing an article headlined "Don't Attack Saddam" in the Aug. 15 Wall Street Journal. After noting that "Saddam Hussein is a menace," but pointing out that "there is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks," the former national security adviser argued: "Given Saddam's aggressive regional ambitions, as well as his ruthlessness and unpredictability, it may at some point be wise to remove him from power. Whether and when that point should come out depends on overall U.S. national security priorities. Our preeminent security priority -- underscored repeatedly by the president -- is the war on terrorism. An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.... We simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation."
Baker followed with an article in the New York Times Aug. 25, headlined "The Right Way to Change a Regime." While not opposing military action to depose Hussein, he advised that "we should try our best not to have to go alone, and the president should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so. The costs in all areas will be much greater, as well as the political risks, both domestic and international, if we end up going it alone or with only one or two other countries." He urged Washington to "advocate the adoption by the UN Security Council of a simple straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it." In other words, the U.S. should obtain Security Council support before launching a war against Iraq.
Congressional Democrats have largely remained uncritical of the administration's war plans. All of the six possible candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 support the notion of "regime-change" in Iraq, and have either backed the call for war or have avoided the issue so far. They include former Vice President Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards, Sen John Kerry and Sen. Joe Lieberman.
The Bush-Cheney regime strongly opposes going to the United Nations for several reasons, not the least being that the Iraqi government may agree to inspections, thus undercutting the pretext for military action. In any event the Security Council would oppose a war unless the U.S. was able to furnish concrete proof of its allegations about Baghdad's possession of weapons of mass destruction and intention to use them. In his Aug. 26 speech, which he repeated to another group of veterans a few days later, Cheney directly opposed Baker's suggestion about weapons inspectors and UN involvement. He argued without any pretense of logic that it would be dangerous to delay offensive action by resuming inspections because Hussein would simply deceive the inspectors and build weapons of mass destruction in secret.
The extraordinary opposition of allies and public criticism from leading conservative political figures have had several effects so far.
1. It has obliged the Bush administration to pretend that it seeks a public debate, now that it has become impossible to completely suppress one. This may finally embolden some Democrats to speak out against Bush's warmongering, a happenstance that would have a major impact on public thinking after a full year of jingo conformity.
2. A number of Senators from both parties have now begun to insist that the Bush administration explain its intentions clearly in testimony before congressional hearings. They are also demanding that the White House consult with Congress about the Iraq situation. After months of ignoring Congress, White House sources revealed at the end of August that Bush is prepared to engage in a dialogue. The administration, of course, will now seek to strengthen its hand by obtaining congressional support for an attack on Baghdad. If this support is forthcoming, war seems probable. Bush has made it entirely clear, however, that he has no intention of requesting a declaration of war from Congress. Despite being a constitutional requirement, the last time Congress declared war was in 1941; all the following wars and military actions were ordered by the White House, with or without congressional approval, much less a declaration of war. At this stage, the government maintains it has the authority to launch a war on the extremely dubious basis of a 1991 congressional resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf war, and last year's vote to support the war on terrorism. This could prompt a widening of the inchoate debate. Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold insisted Aug. 29 that if there is to be a conflict, Congress must issue a formal declaration of war. Sen. Patrick Lahey (D-Vt.) announced the same day that "there should be a full debate and a vote. That is what the Constitution prescribes and that is what the American people expect."
3. Until now, the White House has avoided any mention of the United Nations in relation to its attack plans because it fears the Security Council will insist that efforts first be made to secure the return of weapons inspectors. Secretary General Kofi Annan made the world organization's view clear a few days ago by declaring that "the UN is not agitating for military action." In the face of allied criticism and demands from what the New York Times terms "the Republican mandarins," Bush is now depicted by aides as contemplating the possibility of inviting some form of UN involvement in his war plans. Working with the UN -- at least until a propitious political moment is discovered to launch an attack -- is considered a last resort if the opposition continues to mount. The president is expected to address the UN early in September. The views expressed in this key speech undoubtedly will be influenced by how the ruling circles and the political system have responded to Cheney's campaign to whip up public enthusiasm for a war. So far, according to a New York Times editorial Aug. 29, "Cheney failed to offer convincing answers to questions that give many Americans pause about using military force to oust Saddam Hussein. The White House has yet to meet the difficult burden of showing why Iraq's weapons programs, including its efforts to develop nuclear arms, require an American invasion."
Another outcome of the recent uproar about Iraq and its ramifications throughout society is that it will strengthen the antiwar movement. The increasing beat of Washington's war drums, combined with allied opposition, elite criticism, and congressional motion, are expected to swell activism in coming months. Major demonstrations against an Iraq war, organized for Oct. 26 by the ANSWER coalition, are anticipated to draw huge numbers, expressing not just doubts about the best means of pursuing imperial interests but clear-cut opposition to an illegal, immoral and imperialist war. Coming at this time, mass protests are likely to resonate more clearly and forcefully in the public mind than at any time since Bush launched his war on terrorism.
Publicly, President Bush is insisting that his government has not decided with finality whether to pursue its "regime-change" war plans. Naturally the White House would prefer to capture at least some allied support for an attack on Baghdad, but acting unilaterally in defiance of world opinion is hardly unique for this administration. Clearly, the open conservative split and the possibility of a serious public debate on the issues may force Bush and Cheney to modify their timetable for aggression. But the principal ingredient in this mix is domestic public opinion, which still favors a military adventure against Iraq. If this begins to wane in the next weeks and months -- and the antiwar and left movements have a major role to play in this regard -- Bush could conceivably decide against a new war at this time.