Introduction
His favorite daytime television programs having failed to deliver the hard evidence that Joe Dees needed to make a compelling "case to action", he is now echoing the latest administration calls for a "new" approach to global relations. One based on the perception that some people are too "evil" to be permitted to rule. Joe Dees should know that all evil is in the eye of the beholder - other than where we have an established and accepted law in order to permit the establishment of an objective perspective. As I shall show in this essay, we do have such law, and it does not support the actions that Joe Dees is advocating. In addition, I am going to show that nobody, not least the United States, will benefit from the advocated action.
Pragmatic Issues
1) The Kurds are largely brutish, tribal, religious fanatics who strongly support Al Qu'aeda (who are reportedly present in Northern Iraq) and who are reportedly instigating attacks from there against the regime of Saddam Hussein - and who are presumably dealing with like minded groups to develop attacks against the US. Thus "Operation Shield" has and is undoubtedly harming the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is not in control of Northern Iraq because the US is protecting the Kurds. Thus the ongoing campaign against Baghdad is counterproductive in that it has and is providing a safe haven for avowed enemies of the United States. Thus advocacy of continuing or extending Operation Shield is arguably harming the US.
3) The US administration was apparently heavily involved in facilitating access to biological weapons (for which there are no "dual uses") and possibly sponsoring the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. The US administration undoubtedly prevented attempts by the International community and Congress to address or prevent this. When this gets to court, assuming that the US does not simply engage in murder - as is currently (and illegally her stated intention) - the US involvement will become explicit. Will those political commanders currently employed by dubya's administration to "mastermind" Gulf War part III, and who were allegedly involved in this process during the Reagan and Bush administrations also be arraigned for crimes against humanity? Either way, it seems that our hypocrisy is going to become embarrassingly apparent. I am not sure how this is going to be "good" for the US.
4) The arguments which the US have used for investing the territory and overthrowing the governments of other nations is already being used by other nations to justify similar action. Thus as predicted, US actions and arguments have already had a massively destabilizing effect. I am not sure how a more dangerous world is good for the US.
5) As Afghanistan, which is rapidly reverting to the same "rule by warlords" (and indeed, the same warlords) which enabled the creation of the Taliban in the first place, clearly demonstrates, the US does not have the technical capability to instantiate "democracy" or even to control the situation in Islamic countries. And her presence in such countries is sufficient to generate an ongoing recruiting effect for organizations prepared to encourage acts of terror within the US. Thus these actions are massively unhelpful to the "war on terror." I am not sure how this is good for the US.
6) As I predicted, and as the quarterly report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,791314,00.html) from the US Federal Reserve reflects, the US is unable to afford the cost of the actions she is already involved in, and this is causing global economic catastrophe. Action which further destabilizes the Gulf Region could see the cost of oil (which has already doubled to around $30 per barrel) rising to around $40 per barrel even without a war. This would have the effect of producing negative growth in the US. Should Saudi Arabia collapse, even if the US steals the Iraqi oil, the cost per barrel would rise to $80 to $90 per barrel. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
7) Meanwhile, considered analysis suggests that we are less secure than we were prior to the attacks on the use in 2001. Public opinion also reflects this. I am not sure how this reality suggests that increasing our enemies would be sensible.
8) Given the evidence already available (e.g. [urlhttp://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm]"The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies "[/url], it appears that there are serious questions that require answers. I am not sure that such questions will even be asked in a country which remains continuously at war and where far too many of its citizens have decided, along with government, that they can dispense with historic constitutional protections put there for very good reason. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
9) Should the United States defeat Iraq and presumably dispose of the Ba'thist party, the United States claims to have no answer to how they would govern Iraq, or how they would prevent the multiple religious and tribal groupings in the region, fully as fanatical as Joe Dees, from causing rapid disintegration without deploying several hundred thousand "peace keepers" in the region. As Iraq is already devastated by US sponsored sanctions, which if her economy were functioning at 1990 levels would take 100 years for them to pay off, it is difficult to imagine how this "peace force" would be paid for, and thus it is unlikely that it would be effective. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
10) US actions are believed by most of the world to have been demonstrated to be comprised of equal parts of hypocrisy, self-interest and naked greed. We are already complicit in the murder of millions of Iraqi citizens, and hundreds of thousands of other people who identify the US as "them." We are accused of serious war crimes in Afghanistan. We stand accused of massively supporting many of the most repressive regimes on Earth, not least Israel. Tapes of bin Laden accusing the US of massive prejudice against Islam due to their actions in Israel are now public, removing the grounds for the claim that this had nothing to do with 911. Another war with Iraq will undoubtedly result in further deaths. Possibly large numbers of them. This cannot reduce the urge by others to "punish" or "take revenge" on the US. I am not sure how this can be good for the US.
11) It is quite clear, that if their political masters do not interfere too much (and that is very far from certain), and if appropriate support is provided (and the administration is looking for a "cheap war" given that our tactical stores are depleted and many of our aircraft are in desperate need of replacement or refurbishment due to unplanned use - and congressional reluctance to make the neccessary replacements while it was possible, along with a huge shortage of money to do so now), that the US military is capable of overcoming any short-term resistance which Iraq is capable of generating. It is not clear how this tactical reality can be turned to a strategic purpose. Strategy has to involve more than "eliminate Hussein." Yet, so far as we are aware, that is all the guidance received to date from the US administration. As far as we can tell the thinking appears to be to leave men on the ground indefinitely, attempting to hold an hostile country under control. As any experienced commander - or military
historian - can tell you, this is a recipe for being bled to death by rat and mice bites. Unless US military equiment and lives are regarded as disposable, I am sure that this would not be good for the US.
Legal
1) When somebody asserts "pre-emption" the evidence has to be overwhelming lest the pre-emptor become the aggressor. This is why the grand Charter of the UN does not permit preemption. The UN, and many other nations, including Iraq's neighbors, along with most of the reputedly competent security analysis organizations (e.g. Jane’s, Rand, FAS, BAAS, IAS) have repeatedly stated that there is no evidence that Iraq poses a threat to her neighbors, never mind to the US. There is also no believable evidence of intent. Saddam Hussein is fully aware that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or possibly even Iran, with no help from the US, could overrun Iraq today, and there is little he could do to prevent it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has presented history or speech, that indicates that Saddam Hussein has ever held anything other than regional aspirations. And those are utterly irrelevant in the Middle East of today. Even the UK is not seeking to present evidence that Iraq poses any credibl;e threat to her or the US, b
ut is instead arguing, as does Joe Dees, that Saddam Hussein should not be allowed to govern, because he is a very nasty man and he might acquire some nasty weaponary somewhere, somehow, which might make him dangerous. This may be true. And certainly, he might be tempted to wield a blow against those threatening him if this ever were to happen. But a concatenation of "ifs" is not evidence of danger and the world is full of nasty people. Besides, the reality is that he is fully aware that such an attempt would not have much effect (even if some WMD equipped nation opened the doors to their arsenals to him, no weapon systems he is likely to be able to deploy would have more than a symbolic effect in the greater scale of things) and it would almost certainly result in the destruction of Iraq, himself and his aspirations.
2) It should be noted that the Grand Charter has the same weight in the US law as US law itself (as do all other treaties signed by the US)- and thus action, which contravenes the charter of the UN, is unconstitutional. When such action is performed or advocated by those who have sworn to defend the constitution, this constitutes treason. Seeing as Joe Dees continuously raises his stint as a junior technician in the US military, is it fair to presume that he took an oath to defend the constitution? If this is the case, it might also be worth asking why he is continuously engaging in advocating treason while simultaneously accusing others of insisting that the US behave lawfully of un-American or even anti-American behavior? Of course, the same question should be asked of dubya.
3) Like any other accused, Saddam Hussein should be considered as innocent until proven guilty and while in office is protected from prosecution, by international agreement. The only exception to this is for "crimes against humanity" which might be brought against him in the new court established for this purpose, which the US, for understandable if not good reasons is attempting to emasculate - just as they have emasculated dozens of other international treaties. The action being taken by the US in an attempt to protect US and Israeli nationals from prosecution could be used by Saddam Hussein to avoid prosecution.
4) If we were to accept the arguments which the US (and Joe Dees acting as dubya's second poodle) have attempted to use against Iraq as having any validity, they could easily be used to justify any action against any other nation (in contravention of the Grand Charter). As such, unless it can be shown that politicians with no oversight have miraculously become trustworthy, the world will become a more dangerous place. I am quite sure this will not be good for the US - which currently appears to have the best politicians that money can buy.
Summation
Yes the US has suffered grievous harms. Not least those self-imposed and most certainly many triggered by the perception held of her by much of the remainder of the world. While it is true that not all of that perspective is accurate, much of it is. For example, the US has repeatedly proven herself an untrustworthy aid source, a very unreliable partner and a very ill-behaved debtor. And this invites retribution from the innumerable people and groups who perceive themselves as having been harmed or prejudiced by her actions. I would argue that this is a far more visible, insidious and much greater danger than those which the action which Joe Dees advocates is intended to forefend.
For these reasons and all those itemized above, ranging from the purely pragmatic to the preeminent legal, it is clear that serious issues remain to be addressed within the United States, and in her relationships with other nations, before attempting to deal with one of many tin-pot dictators - including if he is in that category, or even in some more "special class", with Saddam Hussein.
It should also be clear that precipitate action is not in the best interests of the United States and that those advocating such actions, while they may imagine that they have her best interests at heart are doing her no favors.
Hermit
[hr]Full Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Church of Virus (2002). All Rights Reserved.
http://www.churchofvirus.com
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that this Copyright Notice is included as an inseparable component of all such copies and derivative works, and that the terms of this copyright statement shall be binding on derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Church of Virus, except as needed for the purpose of developing further Church of Virus documents or as required to translate it into languages other than English, in which case the procedures for copyrights defined by the Church of Virus from time to time must be followed.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Church of Virus or its successors or assigns.
This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and the Church of Virus disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to any warranty that the use of the information herein will not infringe any rights or any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. You are specifically warned that study of documents produced by the Church of Virus may lead to a permanent change in your attitudes or behavior as a result of exposure to the memeplexii and component memes embedded in such documents.
---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=26568>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:23 MDT