Bush's Wanton War

By: Michael Hammerschlag

Psychopath Saddam isn't right about many things, but he may be about the primary motivation behind Bush's push for war: vengeance... specifically for Saddam's plot to kill his father in Kuwait in '93. The President finally let it slip in a chat: "He's a bad man - he tried to kill my father." Attempting to murder a President may in fact be justification for removal with extreme prejudice, and there are few people in the world more deserving of the honor than Saddam, but a decade is a long time to wait, and the results and reaction to a general attack on the devastated Iraqi people and economy might be far more costly than any temporary increase in security.

Punishing ones enemies is a central tenet of the Bush family philosophy - GW's main political job for years was as an enforcer against administration officials who dared divert from the his father's wishes. It's no accident that family wise man Brent Scowcroft urged moderation on the hotheaded eldest son. For Schröeder's crime of willful opposition, Bush plans to punish the Germans - but wasn't our main purpose to teach them an aversion to war? In his first act as President, Bush cancelled the Clinton cap on exploding California energy prices (up to 100-fold increases, by criminal price fixing among generators) - as a result Enron's revenues ballooned from $25 billion in first half 2000 to $100 billion in the same period 2001 - even assuming a justified doubling in prices - still $30 to $40 billion in criminal windfall profits ripped from the pockets of voters who had given his opponent a 12 point victory and handed to his biggest contributor. This shockingly corrupt and unreported act is still the iceberg that might sink the Bush administration.

Saddam is a monster - he should have been killed after he set the Kuwait oil fields on fire and fouled the entire Persian Gulf - if he could be removed directly, through commando actions or bombing his palaces, doubles, and refuges - fine; but what is contemplated is a general attack - devastating the Iraqi infrastructure and people yet again. Judging by our actions in Afghanistan, where we haven't fixed one road, Bush won't rebuild or rehabilitate Iraq after another war - leaving our occupying troops among a bitter hateful populace, a open sore to the billion Muslims of the world. Don't we build anything anymore? Credible reports have upwards of half-million Iraqis dying from third world diseases like typhoid or dysentery over the last 11 years; because in '91 we bombed Baghdad's water purification and sewage treatment plants, covering the cradle of civilization with excrement, then embargoed chlorine for a decade (because it's used in making poison gases). Reattaching Iraq to the world could result in a flood of fervent anti-American terrorists.

After our tacit endorsement of Sharon's harsh treatment of the Palestinians, an invasion of Iraq would convince the Moslem world that we are at war with them - and the pool of available terrorists would swell from a few thousand delusion lunatics to millions. Our struggle against Al Qaida would greatly suffer, as Islamic governments wouldn't help or even allow us capture Bin Laden's minions. Even European countries - virulently opposed to an invasion - would cool their cooperation in our struggle against the 9-11 killers, except for England - now the 51^st state. We would become the Ugly Americans.

Bush has provided no proof for any connection between Saddam and Al Qaida - the alleged meeting between Atta and an Iraqi diplomat in Prague had to be embarrassingly disavowed. Of the hundreds of Bin Laden's satellite calls to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Germany, USA, Pakistan, England... there wasn't one to Iraq. Bush's changing rationales remind me of Chevy Chase's 'land shark'. Saddam with nukes is a chilling prospect - but it still that - only a prospect. If he warrants an invasion, what of Iran, which has killed 400-700 Americans in their Hezbollah Beirut (Marine barracks and Embassy) and perhaps Lockerbie bombings. Russia is building a nuclear plant for them, presumably the Israelis can be counted on to annihilate it like they did the Iraqi reactor in 1981, but where's our logic? Al Qaida members have reportedly taken refuge in Iran. We have far more to fear from diversion of nukes in Pakistan or Russia after an Islamic coup or attack than we do from isolated and sequestered Saddam. What of the paranoid freak on a permanent bad-hair day in North Korea, who has let up to 2 million of his people starve, rather than open his kingdom to the world? He is close to making nukes too.

As sad as it is, this conflict is largely driven by politics - the President's popularity rests on his martial prowess - without a conflict, the electorate's attention may turn towards the devastated economy, deficits, and corporate scandals lapping at the feet of the Bush administration. Indeed, without 9-11, his popularity percentage might now be in the 30's. The tens of billions this war would cost would also crush the beaten down economy - Bin Laden's last instruction.

If we invade Iraq, it will be only because George Bush wants to... and that's not a good enough reason.