On the Illegitimacy of the Bush War on Iraq

The war issue is one of the most important issues of the day. Its significance transcends the Iraq war, which is just one outgrowth of the Bush Administration's National Security Strategy, announced in September, 2002. I aim here first to canvass some specific arguments against the Bush Administration's war on Iraq. Then I will turn to the evidence against the good faith of the Administration, both regarding the war and generally. Finally, because the religious right stands out from most other religious groups in its pro-war stance, I respond to some of its claims.

I believe the case made here against the legitimacy of the Iraq war applies to upcoming attempts to violently implement the Administration's National Security Strategy as well.

1. Some Specific Arguments Against the Administration's War Policy*

1. Foreign Policy.
   1. One attitude we would not want to see adopted by other nations is the Administration's militaristic cow-boyism -- its go-it-alone, call-it-as-I-see-it attitude. We would not want to be denied input into decisions about means and ends in matters that clearly affect us, not to mention the rest of the world.
         A corollary is the Administration's "strategy" of "preemptive strike" against any nation that could pose a threat to the U.S. According to the Administration, the threat need not be immanent (as indeed Iraq was not an immanent threat). According to the Administration, preemptive strike against a nation is justified if, in the judgment of the presidential Administration's judgment alone -- not that of Congress -- that nation will pose a threat within five years (see this excellent Kinsley piece: Slate; cf. Christian Science Monitor). Hence, for instance, India might appeal to U.S. precedent to justify bombing Pakistan (Washington Post). Indonesia appears to have followed the U.S.'s lead (AP); and the Philippines, too, appears to have learned that in the "war on terror," there are few "diplomatic costs to seeking a military solution" (Christian Science Monitor). Among many other concerned groups, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference warned, "We have been particularly concerned about the precedents that could be set" by this policy (U.S. Catholic Bishops).
   2. These are not the only precedent-related worries. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states the norm that "Congress shall have power ... to declare war." Under emergency conditions, the President assumes the power of Congress to declare war. However, the Administration's policy usurps that power, making any norm seem irrelevant in the future.

      "... the Constitution requires the president to go to Congress before launching a premeditated, first-strike invasion of another country," explains [Boston lawyer] Bonifaz. "This is precisely what the framers of the Constitution intended to prevent. They placed Article 1, Section 8 in the Constitution to assure that the president of the United States would not have the power that European monarchs had held in the past in matters of war and peace." (Madison Capital Times)

      When in U.S. history was there a more premeditated, calculated, long-awaited war than the war on Iraq? There was clearly no emergency to justify Mr. Bush's assumption of war-making powers.
   3. We have alienated long-time friends (France, Germany, and many more), partly because we put them in the awkward position of signing on to war with us, but without enough evidence of Saddam's nuclear-biological-chemical weapons. On the one hand, the Administration claimed to have compelling evidence. On the other hand, in Mr. Bush's address, he claimed that he had shared U.S. intelligence with our allies. If the evidence was so compelling, why did so few allies agree? Indeed, in retrospect this argument is even more compelling: not only were the alleged weapons never used by Saddam against U.S. and British invaders, but no such weapons have been found, even weeks after the invasion (Washington Post, Independent).
         The Administration immorally attempted to coerce U.N. Security Council members into supporting Mr. Bush's position. To the embarrassment of decent U.S. citizens, Mr. Bush even insinuated that the U.S. might wield its economic power to hurt Mexico if it didn't comply.
   4. The U.S. has again drawn attention to its never-popular double standard: It is acceptable that
      • the U.S. military use depleted uranium shells, although it is recognized by the international community as illegal and is considered a war crime by many (Sunday Herald; see more below);
      • the U.S. remains in violation of the findings of the U.N.'s International Court of Justice (link);
      Yet it is not acceptable that Iraq be permitted to violate the U.N. (Security Council Resolution 1441). In fact, the Bush Administration sometimes claimed to be invading Iraq on the grounds of Iraq's violation. As someone has put it, the U.S. invaded Iraq to enforce the U.N.'s resolution, thus securing the U.N.'s relevance. But the U.S. invaded in spite of the U.N.'s opposition, thus making the U.N. irrelevant.
         Not to mention, there is the additional duplicity: the U.S. tolerates its allies'/friends' development of nuclear-biological-chemical weapons (Israel, Pakistan, India) -- even when they have not signed the non-proliferation treaty -- and it holds other sovereign nations to different standards (link).
2. Dangerous to Americans.
   1. The Administration's war-related efforts spread more anti-U.S. sentiment (see, e.g., Pew Research Center) and reinforce existing views about U.S.-anti-Muslim/Arab bias. In many quarters the war is interpreted as more U.S. anti-Muslim/Arab aggression. This was only reinforced by the naming of retired U.S. military man, Lt.-Gen. Jay Garner, as coordinator for civilian administration in Iraq. Lt.-Gen. Garner is known to be linked to right-wing hard-line Israelis. He has also "blam[ed] Palestinians for the outbreak of Israeli-Palestinian violence and [said] that a strong Israel was an important security asset to the United States" (Independent). Worse, Mr. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon favor an "interim" military government for Iraq, controlled by the U.S. and its appointees, for instance, the U.S.-friendly Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, who angers Iraqis and Jordanians alike (Salon.com). Is the Administration trying to make the Middle East see us as Western, anti-Muslim colonists?
         The war and the manner in which the Administration conducted itself have fostered a context in which Arabs/Muslims who never did like Saddam Hussein actually sided with him against the U.S. 20,000 Iraqis demonstrated in Nasiriyah, protesting the heavy-handed U.S. role in establishing a new government (AFP); and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have protested across the nation (Al-Jazeera). Hence, I believe the U.S. attack on Iraq will prove to have bred more terrorists throughout the Arab world, and provoke more attacks on U.S. soil. In a report emphasizing the "intensifying ... broad sense of outrage across the Arab and Muslim world" due to U.S.-British action, the Guardian reported that "Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, glumly predicts the war will produce '100 Bin Ladens'." There's a lot more to say about this that I won't include here; but here is one formative moment in the life of just one young Iraqi:

      [After a March 26 U.S. bombing of Baghdad:] "In another room, Alawi, the nickname given to young Ali by his relatives, lay in a bed with a bandage over his head. With deep brown eyes and the look of a young child struggling to make sense of disaster, he said the Americans were trying to kill his father. He pulled nervously on the threads of the blue-and-white blanket covering the cut on his shoulder, recounting his fear.
         "But I'm not afraid anymore. I'm brave," he said meekly. (Washington Post)

      The chaos tolerated by the U.S. military immediately following the invasion -- which brought the pillaging of the Iraq Museum and countless offices in Baghdad -- has also allowed Iraqi nuclear scientists to scatter. Now unemployed, there is legitimate worry that some might be "tempted to work for other countries or for al-Qaida" (Los Angeles Times). By choosing war over weapons inspections, the Administration has sown still more seeds of future wars and terror.
   2. Further, there was reason to fear our military was not equipped/trained adequately to confront nuclear-biological-chemical warfare in the desert (CBS News). The Administration's lack of concern seemed to reflect a culpable negligence with respect to the safety of U.S. troops. Or perhaps it reflected knowledge that Saddam did not in reality possess such weapons.
   3. There is also the psychological toll to U.S. and British soldiers of fighting "disturbingly unfair" battles, killing waves of Iraqi soldiers by the thousands (Christian Science Monitor).
3. Expense (CBS News).
   1. Although Mr. Bush finally estimated the war cost at $80 billion (link), that may be conservative. The Nation estimated about $200 billion (Nation). According to some projections, it might exceed a trillion dollars. Gen. Shinseki revealed the prediction that 200,000 U.S. troops would have to remain in the region; although he got in trouble for revealing this, the Bush Administration knew of this estimate all along (NPR).

4. Just War Theory. According to just war theory,
   1. A just war is one waged as a last resort. Mr. Bush simply did not give stepped-up inspections and other alternatives a sufficient chance to lead to peaceful resolution; so this criterion has not been satisfied. Innumerable parties had repeatedly made this point to no avail.
      
   2. In a just war, there is discrimination between combatants and non-combatants. Urban war in, e.g., Baghdad, is messy, and costs civilian lives. But veteran soldiers and journalists report numerous occasions on which U.S. troops engage in civilian overkill in the heat of battle (New York Times), but also at checkpoints (Le Monde) and in crowds (AFP) -- and even against "coalition" forces (Independent).
         The U.S.'s precision guided weapons -- use of which precedes a block-by-block attack -- have caused serious harm, U.S. denials notwithstanding (Independent, Independent). The use of cluster bombs and munitions in residential areas, such as Hillah, is unconscionable (cf. Los Angeles Times). (Each of these bombs releases a couple hundred bomblets which scatter over a couple hundred yards; but 5%-7% do not detonate on impact, and remain a threat to survivors, especially curious children: Newsday.) The use of depleted uranium shells is itself bringing -- and will continue to bring for years -- unnecessary suffering in the form of deformed children, increased cancer rates, and more (Seattle Post-Intelligencer).
      • DU shells, usually used to destroy armored structures and vehicles, are being used indiscriminately: Independent, Independent;
      • they are illegal, and flout United Nations resolutions: Sunday Herald;
      • legislation is calling for studies of DU's health effects: Congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).
      Nor is the U.S. cleaning the hazardous sites it created (Christian Science Monitor).
   3. The force must be proportional to the injury suffered. Hmmm ... Saddam did not attack the U.S., nor did he threaten to do so, nor was there a shred of credible evidence linking him to the 9/11 attacks -- contrary to the popular belief which the Administration unfortunately succeeded in propagating (immorally).
   4. The attacker must have legitimate authority. If Saddam had stricken us, or perhaps even threatened to do so, Mr. Bush would arguably have had legitimate authority. However, since Saddam did not strike/threaten, and the U.N. did not approve, the burden is on the U.S. government to show it has the authority. But the case has not been made. And as President Carter pointed out (New York Times), for "our announced goals ... to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade ... we do not have international authority."
   5. The peace established by a just war must be an improvement. However, given the instability of the region, it was and is hard to tell what the war will bring: World War III or Pax Americana (including a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, so U.S. interests will be honored).
5. Fear-Mongering. After 9/11, Mr. Bush announced a novel approach to foreign policy -- i.e., designate opponent nations as 'evil' and depict pursuit of U.S. interests (absolute economic dominance where possible, otherwise, military dominance) as the concern of the forces of good. Thus was the Axis of Evil born (the visible scapegoat needed to replace the evasive bin Laden). For one thing, this foreign policy suicide puts Iran and North Korea on notice to await their turns to be invaded. But it leaves other nations wondering whether they might be on our "to bomb" list, too. Then again, North Korea might reason that the U.S. poses a five-year threat to it, and bomb the U.S. preemptively! As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, pointed out, U.S. policy on Iraq might just teach the world "if you really want to defend yourself, develop nuclear weapons, because then you get negotiations [as North Korea does], and not military action [as Iraq does]" (Nation).
      Through this means and others, Mr. Bush has exacerbated the natural post-9/11 fear, encouraging distrust of foreigners and a conception of "us" as against "them." So he has not only succeeded at inspiring more anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide, but -- in spite of the Administration's early inability to link the World Trade Center attacks to the Axis of Evil -- Mr. Bush has taken advantage of the fear and confusion to claim a link between the Axis of Evil and the Attacks of 2001.
      He has also used this fear to extend the power of the executive, demanding quick agreements from Congress; and he plans to use the fear, for instance, to give the Justice Department powers beyond reason (see the already passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, and the yet to be introduced D.S.E.A., a.k.a., "Patriot II": Nation). His rhetoric has made the people all too receptive to his Administration's attack on civil liberties. It's almost as if he had read Goering:

   "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
   -- Herman Goering, a Nazi tried at the Nuremberg trials

6. Humanitarian Disaster. War risks killing too many Iraqi non-combatants (and a disproportionate number of children: more than half Iraq's population is apparently under the age of 15). Although U.S. weapons have become increasingly precise, the first Gulf War Iraqi death toll is too seldom considered: "40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, ... putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children…. 205,500 Iraqis died in the war and postwar period" (BusinessWeek). The direct casualties of this war have begun to pile up, and will continue -- especially since it appears the U.S. is using controversial, civilian-killing cluster munitions (BBC; these violate the Geneva Conventions: Independent; see IraqBodyCount.net). The number of indirect casualties will be a function of numerous decisions the U.S. made during bombing, such as the use of shells containing depleted uranium.
      Also, there was/is reason to worry that the U.S. response to the humanitarian needs it creates will not be sufficient. After all, for all of the talk about meeting humanitarian needs and rebuilding Afghanistan, here's the total amount Mr. Bush asked for in his budget to follow through on that rhetoric: $0. (Luckily Congress is appropriating some monies, even if not enough.) Although Iraq's existing debt is heavy, the Administration appears to think Iraq's oil profits can be tapped to pay for rebuilding; so the U.S. will at some point attend to the needs. I have worries about both long- and short-term aid efforts.
   • In the long-term aid effort, Mr. Bush plans to make sure U.S. corporations tied to the Administration get the multi-million-dollar contracts for rebuilding many structures. (See "conflicts of interest" below.)
   • In the short-term, the Administration has soldiers engaged in the humanitarian effort. Although this creates serious problems for aid organizations -- and has drawn criticism from international aid experts (Oxfam) -- perhaps the Administration sees propaganda value in the pictures of U.S. and British soldiers handing out water, easing the pain of those whose loved ones were killed by U.S. bombs.

      There has also been a broader sense in which the war has needlessly stricken the heart and spirit of the Iraqi people. Although the U.S. military stationed troops to defend the Iraqi Oil Ministry (Salon.com), it appears that in spite of forewarnings, it was unconcerned to prevent the loot-and-burn destruction of both the Iraq Museum and National Library -- which constitutes both a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Salon.com; on the post-war responsibilities of warring powers: Independent) and "of the 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of artistic treasures in wartime" and of other international law standards governing the conduct and responsibilities of invaders (AP, World Socialist Web, Sunday Herald). UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called the loss of Iraq's treasures "a wound inflicted on all humankind" (U.N. News Center).

7. Uncertainties. Uncertainties about the ramifications of military confrontation were -- and remain -- significant. See IV.e, above. The following conservative commentary by retired Col. Mike Turner highlights some of the significant unknowns: NPR.

2. Against the Good Faith of the Bush Administration

The case for war. It is important not to forget that Mr. Bush never did make an adequate case for war against Iraq -- neither (a) on the grounds that the "Iraqi threat" is the most pressing one on our horizons (or even particularly compelling), nor (b) on the grounds of having linked Osama bin Laden to Iraq (Washington Post).
   The point is not that those against the war had proof that Saddam posed no danger and was not linked to terrorists. It is that the U.S. had not provided evidence that Saddam did have such links. Typically, the burden of proof is on the aggressor/"plaintiff" to prove the other party guilty, rather than vice versa. This is as it should be. It is worth recalling the weapons inspectors' word, now with retrospective clarity, that war-legitimizing U.S. "intelligence" claims notwithstanding, there is no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (Independent); and there is considerable reason for skepticism about anticipated U.S. claims to the contrary (Salon.com).
   It is worth reminding ourselves that the preponderance of evidence indicated that Saddam and Osama were pretty staunch enemies, Saddam being a more secular leader whose government featured members of other religions (Telegraph) and Osama being a religious fundamentalist. If anything could bring them together, it might have been the "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq (cf. the "Dangerous to Americans" section above).
   Indeed, U.S. policy has for the most part been to knowingly tolerate the "crisis" in Iraq; the U.S. even played a central role in creating it. The U.S. feared Iran so much in the 1970s and 80s that it had armed Iraq back then, and it was back then, too, that Donald Rumsfeld blazed the trail to chummy Iraq-U.S. relations, in spite Saddam's possession and use of chemical weapons -- about which Mr. Rumsfeld then knew (Zmag). For more than fifteen years, though, Mr. Rumsfeld has publicly favored invading Iraq. 9/11 proved a handy excuse to justify rekindling those flames.

The hawks have a tendency to attempt to side-step questions about the acceptability of war by decrying the "false peace that leaves the security of free nations in the hands of a blood-thirsty tyrant like Saddam Hussein" (Tom Short). This "argument" rests on a false dilemma (i.e., it presents two options as if they were the only two; more baldly: "Well, I oppose Saddam; so I guess I must be for the war"). The antidote to this dupery is to note that numerous "third-way" alternatives had been presented; these usually included stepping up inspections and more (which alternatives were far less costly than war in dollars and lives). The religious coalition that met with Tony Blair around Feb. 18(?) (and which Mr. Bush was unwilling to hear out -- even though it included the leadership of his own Methodist denomination!) presented a six-point plan which included trying Saddam for crimes against humanity. (See the plan: Sojourners.) Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline Protestants all came out against the war (Sojourners). Among major denominations, I think only the Southern Baptist Convention was for the war, and that had not to do with justice, but with their eschatology and view about Israel.

Conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest are not uncommon in this Administration. But on war issues, where lives and the future of the world are at stake, these judgment-compromising conflicts are of the utmost seriousness. The Administration's war policy is shot through with conflicts of interest. And I'm not even counting the "Daddy's war" theory. Here's what I am talking about. Most people didn't even know about Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle's shocking role in the companies that stood to gain from his long-time, consistent, pro-war mantra: Trireme and Global Crossing (see New Yorker; New York Times; New York Times; New York Times; on March 27, he was finally cramped out of the DPB's chairmanship, damage done; but he remains on the board). In all, at least nine of the board's 30 members are linked to companies that won more than $76 billion in contracts with the Defense Department over the past two years (Washington Post).
   Others in the Administration hope to cash in on the war, too (Village Voice).
   Surprise! The U.S. Agency for International Development chose Bechtel Corp. -- which donated more to Republican committees than any other bidding companies -- in a by-invitation-only "competition" to receive a contract to rehabilitate Iraq's power, water, and sewage systems (New York Times). Bechtel executives include former Secretaries of State and Defense, George Shultz and Caspar Weinberger. The boys' network connections turn up everywhere; for instance, Mr. Bush appointed former Bechtel exec. Ross Connelly to run the U.S. agency, Overseas Private Investment Corp.
   Halliburton Co., which has recently paid Dick Cheney a million dollars in "deferred compensation" for his service as CEO, decided not to bid, hoping to get another piece of Iraqi pie as a subcontractor. Besides, the company already enjoys a contract it was "awarded ... to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq" (CommonDreams, 60 Minutes; for more on the "insider" deals, see New York Times).

For one of the better pieces on the oil conspiracy theory of the Iraq War, see Independent. The article makes reference to a group formed in 1997, the Project for the New American Century; it is a scary group which includes many members of the current Administration and has aimed to start a war with Iraq since well before the convenient new "War on Terror." For a nice discussion of how the war might have been motivated by broader concerns of White House "neoconservatives," see Salon.com

The Administration appears unconcerned about the human rights violations of the companies that win its contracts. For instance, U.S. military contractor DynaCorp, which provides the private police force for Afghan president Karzai, "has won a multi-million-dollar contract" to police Iraq. Yet evidence links DynaCorp to a number of human rights violations, including participation in sex trafficking (Observer, CorpWatch.org, Insight, Insight).

Deception. Not only has the Administration been slow to admit the civilian deaths it caused since the war began (e.g., Independent), it has been guilty of numerous outright deceptions and lies, many pre-dating the onset of the bombing. For instance,

• the "stirring image of Saddam's statue being toppled on April 9th" was staged by the U.S. military (AlterNet).
• the Administration submitted forged documents in the attempt to mislead the world to believe Saddam tried to buy uranium from Niger (to develop nuclear weapons) (see AP; Salon.com; from UN Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix: Pacific News Service);
  • the lie's timing "was crucial in persuading the US Congress to grant President Bush full war powers" (Independent);
• the testimony of Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel was abused by Secretary Powell at his February 5 presentation to the Security Council as compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and lots of nerve gas. A pertinent unrevealed portion of Kamel's testimony reads as follows: "All weapons-- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed" in the 1990s to prevent inspectors from proving they existed (Fair.org);
• the Administration was caught illegally spying on Security Council members (tapped phones, etc.) in order better to discover how to coerce compliance (Observer | Guardian; NewsDay | Observer);
• Secretary Powell misled the world, according to U.N. weapons inspectors, into thinking the Iraqis had developed a drone aircraft to disperse chemical/biological weapons. For the real story about the drone, see AP;
• it appears the Administration had been planning war for over a year -- making the appeals to the U.N. Security Council look like a charade (Tommy Franks spilled the beans: Financial Times);
• about the British: key portions of British intelligence reports -- cited by Colin Powell in his case before the Security Council -- were plagiarized! (Salon.com).

Then there is the issue of propaganda/spin. As Robert Sheer put it, "Iraqi civilian deaths are either 'terrorist tactics' or 'collateral damage' -- depending on who caused them" (Salon.com). Sheer notes it is as if we in the U.S. have forgotten that soldiers during our war for independence we were "condemned as terrorists by the British" due to their tricky tactics.

Finally, here's a nice article that summarizes some worries of others: Washington Post.

Advice. Although on occasion the U.S. military might interfere with journalists (as when they attempted to distance journalists from protests in Baghdad and Kut (AFP and BBC), and although journalists "embedded" with U.S. or British forces have a carefully controlled point of view on events, there are good sources of information available (see Voice4change). Domestically controlled news has been less objective and more "supportive" of the Administration on the war issues, perhaps in part in response to ratings data. Hence, international news sources are helpful both as a corrective, and because they provide a better sense of how U.S. action looks from outside the U.S. (On media mistakes, see Mother Jones; for regrettable news about Fox's success in spite of its bias, see AP.)

The press/media has allowed itself to be played by the Administration. Mr. Bush's use of the press at his March 6 "news conference" was a stunning case in point. It was so scripted that Mr. Bush even called on a reporter who, he came to learn, was not present (Observer). The questions put to Mr. Bush smacked of compliance. This was a far cry from the kind of scrutiny to which the press ought to subject any administration. Some news agencies have been self-censoring (Independent). NBC fired Peter Arnett for his unfavored comments (AP). Suspiciously, the U.S. "accidentally" bombed media organizations deemed unfavorable to the U.S.-British invasion (Independent).
   The Bush Administration's attempts to "work" the press have not uniformly succeeded. It was "caught" in, for instance, the attempted "Boxgate" deception, in which the fake "Made in USA" backdrop was placed over the boxes bearing the text, "Made in China" at a press event in which Mr. Bush expressed support for small U.S. businesses hurt by the economy (ABC News). Still, even when caught, as in the case of the listed deceptions and lies above, mysteriously, it proceeds unapologetically.

Bad faith generally. Although this portion of my discussion will be inadequate in length and breadth, it is worth including. The Bush Administration lacks good faith not just pertaining to the war, but generally. It's the administration of and for the wealthy, not "the people." Indeed, Mr. Bush did not even win the majority vote in the '00 election, but was anomalously appointed by the Supreme Court. It's the Administration against the poor, featuring decreased aid for the needy, deficit-producing tax cuts for the rich enhanced by increased defense spending, curtailments of liberty, attacks on environmental protections, and more. If this is hard to see, it might be because its war has helped distract the nation's attention from the real problems faced by citizens here in the U.S.

Poverty at home. The Bush Administration has cut taxes for the wealthy and increased weapons-related spending by 4.4% or so (Center for Defense Information). Our defense budget outstrips not only that of every other nation on earth; it outstrips numerous of our top competitors combined. Our foreign and domestic aid budget, on the other hand, is slim by comparison, and is being cut. In an anti-poor move at home, the Bush Administration proposed to change the rules governing qualification for federally subsidized housing: Under the Bush plan, the poor are no longer to pay "up to" $50 per month for housing; they are instead to be required to pay "at least" $50 per month. Subtle on paper, but painful to many poor families. Children, the elderly, and in general, the poor, urgently need housing, nutrition, education, and medical care. Elderly folk are forgoing prescription medications so they can heat and cool their homes. Single mothers need child-care and educational opportunities. Hungry children need food at school and smaller class sizes -- not cuts in education dollars!
   The Administration's policies are based on a subtle anti-poor bias together with the simple-minded belief that the poor are poor due to their own failings, rather than due to social and economic structural inequalities. Most middle class and well-to-do people are all too content to fall back on anecdotes: "Hey, my uncle knows someone who was born in poverty, yet went from rags to riches. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between poverty-at-birth and poverty later on." This is like the pro-smoking argument: "Hey, George Burns didn't die of smoking tobacco, so the causal link between tobacco and cancer is widely exaggerated." Both are guilty of ignoring the powerful statistical evidence. Middle and upper class people are more often beneficiaries of social or economic privilege than of raw intelligence and the pizzazz to overcome all odds. It is hardly fair to penalize the poor for not being born into the privileged class.

Poverty and injustice abroad. At the time during which the U.S. was spending $12 billion per month on bombing Iraq, it had spent a total of only $65 million to provide Iraqis with water, etc. (Monbiot.com). According to the UN Development Report of 1999 (I haven't read the 2002 report), less than $68 billion in 1999 would have provided at least basic water, sanitation, health, and nutrition for the needy of the world. A fraction of our defense budget could provide for these needs (Center for Defense Information). From the standpoint of strategy, such spending has the utility of promoting peace; from the standpoint of democracy, many -- maybe most -- U.S. citizens would much prefer the U.S. to be known as the nation that addresses suffering and terrorism at their roots, rather than known as the cause of much suffering and terror. But as it is, the U.S. deserves a significant amount of the flack it gets on this front: it provided weapons for 45 of the 50 worldwide conflicts during the last decade (cf. New Internationalist, December 2000, 18).
   Indeed, the U.S. supports lots of terrorism worldwide. In this hemisphere, many of the most ruthless terrorists are trained in Fort Benning, GA at the School of the Americas (for a brief history, see Guardian; for a set of links, see link). The evidence is incontrovertible, yet the issue has not been resolved, notwithstanding the effort of many conscientious people over the last few decades.
   The U.S. has also toppled governments around the world routinely -- even democratically elected ones! -- sometimes directly, sometimes through support of guerillas and militaries. Anyone who has taken a college class in modern Latin America knows this. The club of countries subjected to U.S. domination includes Guatemala in 1954 (link), Aristide in Haiti, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the early 1980s, Indonesia, Brazil, El Salvador, Afghanistan, the Dominican Republic, and more. These are just drops in the bucket of U.S. hubris on the international scene. Some of these are summarized here: link.

Miscellaneous. The Bush Administration panders to corporations, rolling back environmental protections, defending oil interests against developers of alternative energy sources, opting out of the Kyoto Protocol, hurting other countries and U.S. workers through "neo-liberal" so-called "free trade" policies (including NAFTA) ... the list goes on. Policies on these matters have the power to enhance lives or harm them. For instance, the trend away from regulation of the global economy ties you and me -- through our consumer behavior -- to the practice of child slave labor. Throughout the 1990s, the Ivory Coast's cocoa plantations -- from which most U.S. chocolate comes (for products made by companies like M&M-Mars and Nestle) -- practiced child slavery (StopChildLabor.org). And yet the Bush Administration continues to push for less-well-regulated "free trade," and to undermine the power of the UN to address such trade-related injustices.
   Although I cannot complete and substantiate these charges even half-way adequately here, luckily, there are books which do so; here's a great little one, called Globalization at What Price?, which explains -- among other things -- the links between the U.S. government, poverty, international aid, and trans-national corporations.

My contention has been that these and other Bush Administration policies hurt people. Although not obvious to U.S. consumers, the effects of the U.S.'s and its companies' exercise of power are not unnoticed by those hurt thereby.

3. Response to Right-Wing Religious Claims

Do not oppose on the basis that all war is immoral and inherently anti-Christian.

Short continued:

Do not resort to personal attacks on President Bush.... Because much is being written about how President Bush is the most devoted Christian we have had as president in quite some time. He has unashamedly spoken of his dependence upon the Lord and commitment to prayer. Newsweek ran a cover story about his faith just last week in which it pointed out that most presidents make passing references to God and the Bible, but George Bush builds his convictions and values upon what the Bible teaches. Oh that you and I might have such an honorable thing said about us! George W. Bush is a good man who is seeking the Lord ...

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." (Ha'aretz)

For fear of losing their integrity, religious communities ought to be uncomfortable with the identification of Mr. Bush as "the one we've been waiting for," the trustworthy emissary of God. Indeed, many religious communities disagree with the Bush Administration precisely because of religious teachings which admonish them to care for and defend the poor, the orphans, and the aliens (generally, the oppressed, the powerless).

Short admonished his readers to

[pray f]or our world: That we would not let Saddam divide us.

[Pray f]or Iraq and the entire Muslim world: that they would wonder why "the Great Satan" keeps winning and that it would cause many of them to become Christians.

How disgusting that our national security has now come [down] to seeking the approval from Guinea, Cam[e]roon and Angola --three countries on the UN Security Council that have swing votes. Because we have chosen to work through the UN, we are now in the position to have to beg and bribe third world, corrupt, dictatorships for the right to take down one of their own.

You probably didn't read about the "Peace Protestors" who vandalized a 9-11 memorial in La Habra, CA over the weekend.... Nearly as disgusting as this show of hatred for our country was that local police did not arrest these vandals but said they were only exercising their right to free speech.... You may not have heard of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) favorably comparing Osama Bin Laden to our founding fathers.

... to think the Bible promises a universal peace before Jesus returns is simply abusing the teaching of Scripture.

Have you notice[d] how the Pope has issued far stronger and clearer statements of condemnation of this potential war than he did of child-molesting priests in his own church?

Here Short reaches a new level of absurdity, proposing a kind of conspiracy theory of all peace movements:

Finally, as we consider the "peace protestors," I have an interesting trivia question. Do you know who planned the very first "peace movement"? None other than Joseph Stalin. ... in 1946, he realized that the US was the only super power and so he organized a peace movement to protest any international gains by America. Over the past 57 years, this movement has been true to their roots -- always protesting American foreign policy, never protesting Soviet (or Russian) foreign policy. Think of it: can you name a single military move the US has made in the past 57 years that didn't have "peace protestors" opposing it[?]

The Administration's war policy is thus impractical and immoral; the Administration has shown itself untrustworthy, and incapable of good judgment, and, hence, unworthy of our patient tolerance of its antics. Nor have I heard any compelling arguments from the religious right or other war supporters which diffuse the arguments with which I began.

* - thanks are due to A. Dadlez, who supplied numerous references cited herein.

contact | report an error | forum | Frontline's "Long Road to War" Materials in this section of the site for which original source documentation is specified are owned by their respective copyright holders. All the rest of the contents of this section is maintained by, and © 2003-2004, Brendan Lalor.