Hermann Goering at Nuremberg had this to say: “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 then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” This statement typifies the mood in the United States relative to war against Iraq. The President has told us that there is a madman out to destroy us and that we should preemptively attack him before he annihilates us. The two most common emotions felt by humans involve that of helplessness and the fear of annihilation. The Bush administration has worked inexorably at manipulating the minds of the masses and guiding to believe that the man in power between the Tigris and Euphrates is a “threat to civilization.”
The calamities of 9/11 were the impetus that Bush and Co. used to heighten America’s sense of mortality and subsequent doom unless “evil is eradicated.” Notice how Bush’s speeches calculatedly insert Iraq and Saddam Hussein immediately following references to the tragedies of 9/11. Long gone is the “smoke them out of their caves” rhetoric, which was the common phrase Bush used to describe the techniques that U.S. military personnel would use to capture members of Al-Queda. By the way whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? The man once castigated as the most evil and wanted individual on the globe has been reduced to a mere segue for references to Saddam Hussein and the need for regime change.
The global community or what was, has been diminished to the status of vassals that simply put up an ostensible front of reproach for America’s disdainful Napoleonic ambitions, while in reality they have no intention of challenging American authority. In western Europe, Great Britain maintains its niche as perpetual “lap dog” for American policy. Tony Blair is even more adamant than leaders past at this reticent posture regarding criticism of America. Although the overwhelming majority of his fellow countrymen are vehemently opposed to war with Iraq, Blair defies the logic of the masses and continues to support Bush. The French, although a bit more feisty than the Brits regarding the hegemonic tendencies of the settlers across the Atlantic, tend to reproach American imperialist ambitions publicly, yet integrate a reason to vote with America by default. The Russians and the Chinese are all bought off and the Arab states serve as merely Muppets for the Bush agenda.
On October 7, Bush carefully laid out his rationale for war with Iraq in a speech to the nation. Let’s take a closer examination at the reasons for this sense of urgency regarding Iraq. Bush made powerful references to Saddam’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility that he might soon acquire a nuclear weapon. However, the President did not elaborate on the probability of a surprise Iraqi attack on the U.S. mainland. Hussein would never dare attack the U.S. because he is well aware that he and his regime would be wiped off the face of the earth. Bush also asserts that Saddam, due to his innate lunacy, is incapable of being contained similar to U.S. policy regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. So by this logic, we can contain the likes of Josef Stalin with nuclear capabilities, but Saddam whose true military threat is miniscule at best is incapable of being contained.
Bush’s second argument was, “Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists…without leaving any fingerprints.” The last time I checked Osama’s inherent dislike of Saddam Hussein is one of the primary reasons why Al-Queda exist. History shows us that Osama wanted the Saudi Arabian monarchy to refurbish the soldiers from the mujahadeen in order to remover Saddam, a secular nationalist, from Kuwait. When the Saudi government refused, Bin Laden formed Al-Queda. With this context it is highly unlikely that Saddam will exchange weapons of mass destruction with people that would more than likely use them on his regime first.
The third argument is based on the 20th centuries most common pretext for invading a lesser developed country which is the humanitarian one. Saddam is must be overthrown to liberate and save his people. Gently ignoring the fact that U.S. led sanctions have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. That coupled with the destruction of the country’s water supply and the use of depleted uranium shells have made Iraq “not the epitome of modern living.” If humanitarian breach is now a pretext for war, let us head west and overthrow the Likud party in Israel next. Israel ranks number one in the world relative to human rights violations and they continue to pile on infractions as we speak.
Allowing U.N. inspectors in Iraq should set a new precedent. Since violation of U.N. resolutions has become a pretext for war maybe the overthrow of the Israeli regime is next. Better yet since the U.S. has violated international law by not allowing those same weapons inspectors into our country to inspect our weapons material , maybe the global community will demand culpability from the Bush administration. Or maybe not, after all the international community has become just a facade to legitimize the hegemonic aspirations of the U.S.
Mr. Girard Newkirk contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from North Carolina, USA. He writes on most of the issues regarding the Middle East, religion and its tremendous impact on the world as a Political Theorist.