------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUSH'S WAR: UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL
By Jack A. Smith
The bombing and invasion inflicted on Iraq and its people by the government of the United States March 19 is unjust, illegal and immoral. The reasons for the attack put forward by President Bush are distortions and lies. Here, briefly, is our explanation for these charges.
AN UNJUST WAR: The Bush administration's justifications for this war are that Iraq possesses sufficient weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to seriously endanger the United States, history's most powerful military state; that Iraq is guilty of involvement with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the Pentagon and Twin Towers; that there is a cooperation between the Baghdad government and the Al Qaeda organization; and that Iraq is threatening to its neighbors and to the United States. All these allegations are factually untrue.
If Iraq still possesses some weapons of mass destruction, the UN weapons inspectors would have found them already or over the next few months, if they were allowed to continue their work. The Baghdad government is threatening no other country. Iraq is extremely weak economically and militarily after the 1991 war and 12 years of devastating economic and trade sanctions. The preemptive invasion of Iraq by the United States clearly constitutes an act of aggression against the country's population, national sovereignty and independence.
According to international standards for a "just war," including those of such religious bodies such as the Roman Catholic Church, the attack launched against Iraq is an unjust war. "Based on the facts that are known to us," declared the U.S. Conference of (R.C.) Bishops last Nov. 15, "we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack [by Iraq] of a grave nature."
AN ILLEGAL WAR: A preemptive war against a country that is neither threatening nor attacking another country is a violation of the UN Charter. A war without specific authorization by the UN Security Council is illegal in terms of international law. A war, especially carried out preemptively for economic and political gains without even a declaration of war from Congress is a violation of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11, which requires Congress to approve a military action outside the country's borders. The congressional resolution passed by Congress months ago merely provided Bush advance support for whatever he decided to do. It was not a declaration of war but an abdication of responsibility.
Article 2 of the world's most important international law, the UN Charter, prohibits the interference in the domestic jurisdiction of any state and the use of force against a sovereign state where it has not committed aggression on other states -- and then only under a mandate form the Security Council. Article 33 states that the parties to any dispute must seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation or other peaceful means of their choice. Article 42 states that only the Security Council can consider war operations by air, sea, and land forces of UN members.
Washington claims that Security Council resolution 1441 provides a legal rationale for war because it states that Iraq will face "serious consequences" if it refuses to disarm. This is wrong on two counts: (a) Since when does the phrase "serious consequences" necessarily mean invasion, murder and mayhem? A specific UN approval for a specific war, which was not forthcoming, is required to lend a degree of "legality" to Washington's aggressive behavior. (2) Iraq was disarming what little is left of its weapons capacity, according to the UN inspectors. Clearly, President Bush's attack and invasion of Iraq is manifestly illegal.
AN IMMORAL WAR: A big and powerful country has just launched an unprovoked "shock and awe" terror bombing campaign against a small and weak country that was minding its own business. Combined with a murderous ground assault, the invasion of Iraq will take many innocent lives, destroy the country's civil infrastructure, and create extreme hardship for the entire population. According to virtually every secular and religious code of morality, President Bush's invasion of Iraq -- with its consequent ruination and the death of innocents -- is an immoral act.
DISTORTIONS AND LIES: President Bush maintains that the war is aimed at disarming Iraq of WMD as part America's "war on terrorism." This is untrue. Stripped of its pretexts, Washington's new war is being waged to control Iraq's abundant supply of oil, and to exercise hegemony over the entire strategic and volatile Middle East. If Iraq produced potatoes instead of oil, and were situated elsewhere than between two other countries on Washington's hit list (Iran and Syria), it would be ignored.
The war has nothing to do with "disarming Iraq" of its weapons of mass destruction or waging an international war on terrorism. If Iraq possesses significant stores of hidden weapons of mass destruction, which has not been proven and which we strongly doubt, UN weapons inspectors would have located them in a matter or months -- at a far, far cheaper price than the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars the Bush administration is investing in this war. We believe that one of the reasons for attacking now, instead of allowing the inspections to continue for a few more months, is to avoid the probability that extended probing would prove Iraq has been free of WMD for years, therefore exposing the administration's deception, and making invasion impossible to justify. During the occupation, of course, U.S. troops will discover some WMD, but we suspect the "evidence" will be planted.
As for the claim that Bush's adventure in Iraq is advancing the "war on terrorism," even the U.S. government acknowledges that the invasion will undoubtedly increase acts of terrorism for many years. Asama Bin Laden himself could not have planned a better way to attract new recruits. The Bush administration is not unaware of this tradeoff with terror, but clearly has calculated that the gain from converting Iraq into a protectorate is far greater than the "loss" stemming for a few more terrorist deeds. In any event, Bush has been manipulating the public fear of terrorism to advance his ultra-right agenda ever since Sept. 11, 2001. These orange and possibly red alerts serve more than one purpose.
A WAR FOR OIL AND EMPIRE: President Bush claims he is "liberating" Iraq. This is absurd. The Bush administration plans to turn Iraq into a satellite of the United States. Bush is ravaging Iraq and its people, not freeing them. U.S. troops will occupy Iraq for years, perhaps decades. Future governments of Iraq will be chosen by the White House and installed and protected by the Pentagon. U.S. government officials will now determine Iraq's domestic, foreign and military policies. U.S. government and civilian experts will control the country's economy. U.S. oil corporations will be granted large oil concessions once the country's petroleum industry is denationalized. Many American corporations will profit enormously from contracts to rebuild portions of Iraq and replace equipment destroyed by the weapons produced by other American corporations.
The United States government has finally selected the course it will pursue in the post-Cold War world, where it now functions as the world's singular superpower, militarily capable of ruling or destroying the world -- unilaterally or with a handful of sycophants known as the "coalition of the willing." By attacking an essentially defenseless Iraq against the wishes of many of its closest allies, the great majority of nations in the UN, and a strong and activist U.S. peace movement, Washington is now warning all and sundry that it intends to act upon its right-wing geopolitical assumptions as it sees fit, with no regard for the opinions or rights of other nations.
In the eyes of the modern "democratic" imperialists who guide George W. Bush through the haze of his intellect, Iraq isn't a country with 22 million people who go to work or school, who have children, and problems, and hopes. Iraq to them is a pawn on a game-theory chessboard of world domination somewhere down in the White House War Room, where such concepts as legality, morality, and justness are as dispensable as the truth. The game-theory piece known as "Iraq" has just been captured for the good of the Empire. What, we wonder, is the next move?