[HIMC] FW: [togethernet] The Inspections Flap: Both Sides Are Wrong

[Robert Graham]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2D223.C5BA6290
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



The Inspections Flap: Both Sides Are Wrong

By John Tirman, <A HREF=3D"http://www.alternet.org/">AlterNet</A>
February 7, 2003

The verbal fight about the search for weapons in Iraq is a waste of =
words.=20
This fractious debate, like the search for the weapons themselves, is a =
red=20
herring =E2=80=93 a diversion from the real reasons for war. Oddly, =
those who oppose=20
the war are trapped by the inspection regime's logic every bit as much =
as=20
President Bush is. In a mirror image of each other, both are beholden to =
the=20
wrong standards, pretending to follow the rules, and letting more =
important=20
issues slide by.=20



We know that Saddam Hussein produced chemical and biological weapons in =
the=20
past. It is quite likely that he still has some of each. Whether or not =
they=20
can be located in the next few weeks is unimportant, since Mr. Bush =
seems=20
determined to go to war regardless. (The inspections, with many dozens =
of=20
experts scouring the country, are like a weapons freeze =E2=80=93 he =
can't do much=20
while they're there =E2=80=93 so if war is not pursued, it is in our =
interests that=20
the inspections go on indefinitely.)=20



The Bush administration has become beholden to the weapons issue as the=20
pretext for war, however, so the rationales for invading a sovereign =
country=20
are spinning on that pivot. They have gone so far as to fabricate =
"evidence,"=20
as with the now-discredited charge that aluminum tubes found in Iraq can =
be=20
used in a nuclear weapons program. Similar, wafer-thin exhibits will=20
regularly be displayed, as they were by Secretary Powell at the United=20
Nations on Feb. 5. This is the trap for Bush: Needing international =
support,=20
he went through the United Nations process that was constructed around =
the=20
matter of weapons of mass destruction. He must play by those rules or =
appear=20
to be flouting allies, law and domestic opinion.=20



But he also is flouting longstanding U.S. foreign policy habits =
=E2=80=93 namely, the=20
notion that we cannot undertake something as grave as war without =
proving=20
that the action is to protect our national security. Even President =
Clinton,=20
when contemplating military action in Haiti and the former Yugoslavia,=20
invoked national security rationales when it was plain that humanitarian =

goals alone were at stake. So Bush is also beholden to the "realist" =
mantra=20
of national security. Few believe that Hussein can threaten the United =
States=20
directly, particularly when U.N. inspectors are swarming over his =
country.=20
This is why, apart from pure emotional manipulation, the president is =
now=20
trotting out the also-weak link to al Qaeda terrorists.=20



Anti-war arguments have in part stressed the need to "give inspections a =

chance." This sentiment grants too much to the ostensible rationale and =
not=20
enough to the real value =E2=80=93 containment =E2=80=93 of the =
inspection effort. But it=20
also diverts from the real reasons for war and the ways in which the =
United=20
States is getting to its brink. So the first question is, why war?=20



"Regime change" is the correct answer. Regime change not because Saddam =
is=20
such a nasty fellow, but because the United States wants a platform in =
the=20
Arab world to discipline its monarchies, petty despots and religious =
cranks.=20
It wants a wealthy country in the middle of the region that will be a =
model=20
for American-led globalization. That is one of the key differences =
between=20
the North Korea case and the Iraq case. North Korea does not have to be =
a=20
model for such economic development: It is surrounded by them. Iraq =
provides=20
a very attractive option for the Bush warriors for a number of reasons: =
Iraq=20
has oil, an illegitimate and bloodthirsty ruler, and a history of =
conflict=20
with the United States. Of course, it is easier to wage war against a =
state=20
than against a network of terrorists, so Iraq has become the diversion =
par=20
excellence from the sputtering war against terrorism.=20



In getting to this point, however, the Bush administration has burned =
many=20
bridges, and appears intent on igniting more. It has flouted =
international=20
law and presented false testimony. It has bullied or bribed countries to =

participate in the war, including fragile democracies like Turkey. It =
has=20
created a deep rift with many key allies in Europe and elsewhere. It is=20
recklessly admonishing the U.N. Security Council by insisting that it =
embrace=20
American belligerency or self-destruct via irrelevance. It appears a=20
hypocrite on a number of counts: War on Iraq and not North Korea sends =
an=20
unmistakable signal to Muslims; the U.S. itself violates the Nuclear=20
Non-Proliferation Treaty by not honoring the Article 6 demand to disarm; =
and=20
the U.S. has often supported terrorist groups (like Muslim fanatics in=20
Afghanistan) when it served a purpose, to name three. It says this is =
not=20
about oil, when everything of political significance in the Persian Gulf =
has=20
to do with oil.=20



This is what the anti-war activists should decry: We are going to war =
for=20
American economic and political interests, not national security, and we =
are=20
doing so by cutting a swath of political damage that might never be =
repaired.=20
Hypocrisy, falsehoods, venality, lawlessness, bullying and violence? Is =
this=20
what we've come to? That is the best case against the war, and =
irrefutable by=20
the warriors.=20



John Tirman is Program Director at the Social Science Research Council =
and=20
the author of "Spoils of War: The Human Cost of America's Arms Trade."

   =20





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
togethernet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.=20


------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2D223.C5BA6290
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8" http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.3103.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV align=3Dleft class=3DOutlookMessageHeader =
dir=3Dltr>&nbsp;</DIV><TT>The=20
Inspections Flap: Both Sides Are Wrong<BR><BR>By John Tirman, &lt;A =
HREF=3D"<A=20
href=3D"http://www.alternet.org/">http://www.alternet.org/</A>"&gt;AlterN=
et&lt;/A&gt;<BR>February=20
7, 2003<BR><BR>The verbal fight about the search for weapons in Iraq is =
a waste=20
of words. <BR>This fractious debate, like the search for the weapons =
themselves,=20
is a red <BR>herring =E2=80=93 a diversion from the real reasons for =
war. Oddly, those=20
who oppose <BR>the war are trapped by the inspection regime's logic =
every bit as=20
much as <BR>President Bush is. In a mirror image of each other, both are =

beholden to the <BR>wrong standards, pretending to follow the rules, and =
letting=20
more important <BR>issues slide by. <BR><BR><BR><BR>We know that Saddam =
Hussein=20
produced chemical and biological weapons in the <BR>past. It is quite =
likely=20
that he still has some of each. Whether or not they <BR>can be located =
in the=20
next few weeks is unimportant, since Mr. Bush seems <BR>determined to go =
to war=20
regardless. (The inspections, with many dozens of <BR>experts scouring =
the=20
country, are like a weapons freeze =E2=80=93 he can't do much <BR>while =
they're there =E2=80=93=20
so if war is not pursued, it is in our interests that <BR>the =
inspections go on=20
indefinitely.) <BR><BR><BR><BR>The Bush administration has become =
beholden to=20
the weapons issue as the <BR>pretext for war, however, so the rationales =
for=20
invading a sovereign country <BR>are spinning on that pivot. They have =
gone so=20
far as to fabricate "evidence," <BR>as with the now-discredited charge =
that=20
aluminum tubes found in Iraq can be <BR>used in a nuclear weapons =
program.=20
Similar, wafer-thin exhibits will <BR>regularly be displayed, as they =
were by=20
Secretary Powell at the United <BR>Nations on Feb. 5. This is the trap =
for Bush:=20
Needing international support, <BR>he went through the United Nations =
process=20
that was constructed around the <BR>matter of weapons of mass =
destruction. He=20
must play by those rules or appear <BR>to be flouting allies, law and =
domestic=20
opinion. <BR><BR><BR><BR>But he also is flouting longstanding U.S. =
foreign=20
policy habits =E2=80=93 namely, the <BR>notion that we cannot undertake =
something as=20
grave as war without proving <BR>that the action is to protect our =
national=20
security. Even President Clinton, <BR>when contemplating military action =
in=20
Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, <BR>invoked national security =
rationales when=20
it was plain that humanitarian <BR>goals alone were at stake. So Bush is =
also=20
beholden to the "realist" mantra <BR>of national security. Few believe =
that=20
Hussein can threaten the United States <BR>directly, particularly when =
U.N.=20
inspectors are swarming over his country. <BR>This is why, apart from =
pure=20
emotional manipulation, the president is now <BR>trotting out the =
also-weak link=20
to al Qaeda terrorists. <BR><BR><BR><BR>Anti-war arguments have in part =
stressed=20
the need to "give inspections a <BR>chance." This sentiment grants too =
much to=20
the ostensible rationale and not <BR>enough to the real value =E2=80=93 =
containment =E2=80=93 of=20
the inspection effort. But it <BR>also diverts from the real reasons for =
war and=20
the ways in which the United <BR>States is getting to its brink. So the =
first=20
question is, why war? <BR><BR><BR><BR>"Regime change" is the correct =
answer.=20
Regime change not because Saddam is <BR>such a nasty fellow, but because =
the=20
United States wants a platform in the <BR>Arab world to discipline its=20
monarchies, petty despots and religious cranks. <BR>It wants a wealthy =
country=20
in the middle of the region that will be a model <BR>for American-led=20
globalization. That is one of the key differences between <BR>the North =
Korea=20
case and the Iraq case. North Korea does not have to be a <BR>model for =
such=20
economic development: It is surrounded by them. Iraq provides <BR>a very =

attractive option for the Bush warriors for a number of reasons: Iraq =
<BR>has=20
oil, an illegitimate and bloodthirsty ruler, and a history of conflict =
<BR>with=20
the United States. Of course, it is easier to wage war against a state =
<BR>than=20
against a network of terrorists, so Iraq has become the diversion par=20
<BR>excellence from the sputtering war against terrorism. =
<BR><BR><BR><BR>In=20
getting to this point, however, the Bush administration has burned many=20
<BR>bridges, and appears intent on igniting more. It has flouted =
international=20
<BR>law and presented false testimony. It has bullied or bribed =
countries to=20
<BR>participate in the war, including fragile democracies like Turkey. =
It has=20
<BR>created a deep rift with many key allies in Europe and elsewhere. It =
is=20
<BR>recklessly admonishing the U.N. Security Council by insisting that =
it=20
embrace <BR>American belligerency or self-destruct via irrelevance. It =
appears a=20
<BR>hypocrite on a number of counts: War on Iraq and not North Korea =
sends an=20
<BR>unmistakable signal to Muslims; the U.S. itself violates the Nuclear =

<BR>Non-Proliferation Treaty by not honoring the Article 6 demand to =
disarm; and=20
<BR>the U.S. has often supported terrorist groups (like Muslim fanatics =
in=20
<BR>Afghanistan) when it served a purpose, to name three. It says this =
is not=20
<BR>about oil, when everything of political significance in the Persian =
Gulf has=20
<BR>to do with oil. <BR><BR><BR><BR>This is what the anti-war activists =
should=20
decry: We are going to war for <BR>American economic and political =
interests,=20
not national security, and we are <BR>doing so by cutting a swath of =
political=20
damage that might never be repaired. <BR>Hypocrisy, falsehoods, =
venality,=20
lawlessness, bullying and violence? Is this <BR>what we've come to? That =
is the=20
best case against the war, and irrefutable by <BR>the warriors.=20
<BR><BR><BR><BR>John Tirman is Program Director at the Social Science =
Research=20
Council and <BR>the author of "Spoils of War: The Human Cost of =
America's Arms=20
Trade."<BR><BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>[Non-text =
portions of=20
this message have been removed]<BR><BR><BR></TT><BR><TT>To unsubscribe =
from this=20
group, send an email=20
to:<BR>togethernet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR><BR></TT><BR><BR><TT>Yo=
ur use=20
of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A=20
href=3D"http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of =
Service</A>.</TT>=20
<BR></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C2D223.C5BA6290--