Now
that US weapons inspector and Iraq Survey Group head David Kay
has announced his intent to leave his post in the coming months,
the WMD debate has resurfaced somewhat despite the fact that
much of the media is still swept up in the fanfare of Saddam
Hussein’s capture. Certainly hordes of war advocates have
pointed to Saddam’s capture as being “worth it,”
essentially arguing that the apprehension of one man is worth an
entire war even though it will clearly go on without him. Though
there are those who still choose to argue a more reasoned line
and play the WMD card to justify the war. The danger here is to
see a situation one-dimensionally and make one issue the sole
vehicle for the war’s political and ethical legitimacy.
This
is unfortunate because fundamental opposition to the war is not
founded on whether or not Saddam Hussein possessed extensive
stockpiles of WMD - this has only become a particularly
contentious and significant issue due to the egregious
discrepancies so far between repeated Bush administration claims
and the facts on the ground in Iraq, as well as the false claim
perpetuated in the State of the Union address by President Bush
about Iraq purchasing uranium from Niger.
The
danger of this situation is that a majority of the American
public may come to interpret the war exclusively through the
lens of the WMD saga: if WMD are found then the war advocates
were correct and the Bush administration wasn’t being
manipulative in any way, but if there are no significant
stockpiles found then the anti-war movement is vindicated and
Bush a liar.
This
can also lead to the wholesale de-legitimization of all critics
of militarism and the Bush administration regardless of what is
actually being addressed, whether it be the economy, gay
marriage, or what to do about Iranian nuclear weapons programs.
Karl Rove would love it if vindication through a WMD treasure
trove were to function as a black hole for all criticism of the
president.
It
needs to be reminded that opposition to US militarism and the
war on and occupation of Iraq begins well before the birth of
the WMD juggernaut.
Opposition
to US militarism and the war on Iraq bega well before the
birth of the WMD juggernaut. |
|
First
and foremost, the war waged in Iraq by the Bush administration
was a naked act of aggression against a sovereign nation for
preventative, and largely speculative, reasons - so that Saddam
Hussein could not at some time in the future harm the United
States in any way. This by itself was the United States’
primary reason for ousting Saddam Hussein - because he
threatened United States’ interests in the Middle East; not
because he had already done the United States harm, or
represented a threat to the continental US - usually how the
Saddam threat is framed - or because he had, or wanted to make,
nasty weapons, or because “he gassed his own people,” or
because he was a brutal dictator in general, or because he
allegedly ran with some really bad people. If someone fitting
this description served US interests, there would be no question
as to the individual’s job security; it would be guaranteed.
So
from the very outset the Bush administration’s case for war
was - as is the case with most wars - disingenuous. Bush and his
political handlers wanted to portray military and political
action grounded in the realities of amoral geopolitics and
corporatism as morally guided and compelling duties. This point
of departure became the foundation for all the little lies that
were to follow.
The
US has never been in the business of ousting dictators,
championing human rights, or promoting democracy. |
|
The
United States has never been in the business of ousting
dictators, championing human rights, or promoting democracy;
these are simply code for other, less savory motives. The United
States, instead, like all countries, has actively pursued the
protection of its national interests and economic security, no
matter what those have been perceived to be and regardless of
how others see them. Whether this trait is good or bad, or
undesirable or praiseworthy, it is quite simply how the typical
state functions. Religious, cultural and moral beliefs are then
conformed to the economic reality.
The
war was fought not for the immediate security of Americans,
people like you and me - indeed, the war greatly exacerbated an
already widespread mistrust of the US in the Arab and Muslim
worlds - but for the interests of the ruling plutocratic class
which consecrates every action it makes with the phrase
“national security,” as if the war in Iraq was carried out
to prevent hordes of angry Muslims from pouring over the
Canadian and Mexican borders. All of the moral reasons spoken of
daily by the Bushs, Rices, Rumsfelds and Cheneys are just
rhetorical goodies for the politically naive. Iraq represented a
threat to US plans for the region, of which economic hegemony is
the essential part. It is for this reason that thousands have
died and hundreds of thousands suffer, not for far-flung moral
ideals invoked at Republican fundraisers and exclusive
think-tank powwows. This is the primary reason why the invasion
of Iraq by the United States was hypocritical and fraudulent.
Furthermore,
this display of militarism wasn’t even given the fig leaf of
legitimacy by the pseudo-proxy body of the US, the United
Nations. With this brash move the US threw out all the supposed
lessons-learned of the last century and embarked on a
militaristic, unilateral future where states can act with
impunity when it comes to issues of “national security.”
Most Americans do not seem to grasp the fact that much of the
world feels less secure now that Washington has announced it
will be playing the part of Globocop - destroying any country,
leader or organization possibly threatening to hurt their
interests at some point in the near or distant future, maybe.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press has
reported extensive survey results indicating that negative
impressions of the United States globally have skyrocketed in
the last two years, a period defined by the Bush
administration’s opportunistic reaction to September 11.
Such
frankness of intent on the part of the Bush administration also
further justifies the actions of militant groups and guerrilla
forces wherever they may fight. Now in addition to their own
body of socio-religious ideologies and theories these groups can
point to the so-called “Bush doctrine” and argue that, since
the Bush administration has as one of its goals the eradication
of their organization, they can act legitimately to destroy the
United States. And with the “Bush doctrine” as their guide,
they can. The very use of the term doctrine to describe recent
US efforts is hilarious. It’s kind of like saying that the
neighborhood bully who intimidates or physically abuses all
those who challenge him is actually following some well-thought
out social or political philosophy.
The
question of Iraq’s weapons programs is simply part of this.
Moreover, several questions beg asking: If the United States
nurtured Iraq and Saddam Hussein when he was first developing
many of his WMD programs and coming to regional power, how can
today’s leaders now be so morally appalled by his position?
What’s so significant about pursuing WMD programs (dozens of
states do this free from Washington’s harassment and don’t
represent a threat to Western values)? The Bush administration
claims that Saddam Hussein has never cooperated in disarming,
yet the United Nations’ weapons inspectors documented the
destruction of thousands of liters of chemical and biological
agents throughout the nineties.
If
one likes, one can base their opinion about the current war
solely on this issue, but it avoids the most fundamental
questions of the viability and ethics of war in the modern age.
If the Bush administration’s claims about WMD stockpiles turn
out to be empty - as many already have - this will only elevate
an already illegitimate war into one of the greatest
manipulations and deceptions in the history of US warfare and
modern diplomacy.
