Why Invade Iraq?

G. Simon Harak, S.J.

Blue Print for Social Justice - Volume LVI, Nos 2 &3 October & November, 2002 

IN THIS ISSUE

In a special double issue, ethicist G. Simon Harak, S.J. presents a thorough and well-documented history of the factors leading to the brink of the U.S. invading Iraq, evaluating this situation from the perspectives of ethics, international law, politics, and the strategic issues which are claimed to justify invasion. He provides a broad narrative of recent US-international and US-Iraq relations, so that we might more clearly see the rationale behind the US plans for invasion.

At this writing, the Bush administration has succeeded in getting the U.S. congress to cede war-making power to the presidency.¹ Despite grassroots opposition unseen since Vietnam,² on October 10th and 11^th, 2002, the House and the Senate, respectively, passed H.J. Res. 114 and S.J. Res. 46.³ The president can now use force at his own discretion if he perceives Iraq to be in breach of UN Resolutions, or a threat to the security of the US.

In his effort to convince the congress and the American public, the president delivered a speech on October 7, 2002 in Cincinnati to summarize the nature of the Iraq threat.⁴ Even the supporters of the invasion admitted there was little new in this speech. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. Beyond that, the present and "unique threat" of Iraq was presented by suppositions and scenarios without facts or evidence,⁵ despite the administration's intense pressure on intelligence agencies to "cook the intelligence books"⁶ and come up with something concrete about Iraq. In fact, US intelligence agencies have disputed or refuted many elements of that speech.⁷ A study of those critiques (refer to numbers. 5-7) gives one the impression that the administration has been presenting a modern-day "Gulf of Tonkin incident"⁸ to the American public to justify its planned invasion of Iraq.

President George Bush addressed the UN on September 12, 2002, reciting the history of Iraq's wrongs and violations of United Nations Security Council [UNSC] resolutions. He warned that "We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather," and challenged the UN to "serve the purpose of its founding."⁹

Days later, Iraq, with the prompting of members of the Arab League and others, agreed to allow weapons inspectors to return to Iraq "without conditions."¹⁰ After negotiations with Iraq, Hans Blix, head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] announced that, under the new inspections regime, UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] "may conduct interviews with any person in Iraq whom they believe may have information relevant to their mandate. Iraq will facilitate such interviews." More importantly, "It is for UNMOVIC and the IAEA to choose the mode and location (emphasis added) for interviews." This allows people to be interviewed outside Iraq, and away from possible retaliatory threats from Iraq. Further, inspectors will be granted immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to sites deemed sensitive in the past, including eight presidential palaces.

Ö UN officials have the right to determine the number of inspectors required for access to any site.

Ö "Iraq will ensure that no proscribed material, equipment, records or other relevant items will be destroyed except in the presence of ... inspectors."

Ö Iraqi authorities will provide free escorts, transport, assistance with moving equipment, and a full-time telephone hotline staffed by an English speaker, along with security for inspectors and their equipment.

Ö Iraq will guarantee the safety of all air operations outside the no-fly zones and "will take all steps within its control to ensure the safety of such operations" within the zones.

Ö Inspectors will be guaranteed visas on the basis of a UN certificate and neither they nor their baggage will be searched.¹¹

The US government's initial response to Iraq's re-admittance of inspectors was dismissive. Even with the above "immediate, unrestricted, unfettered" access, the US is at this writing, preventing the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. Instead, the US is presently putting intense pressure on the permanent members of the UNSC (as it did before the Gulf War¹²) for a new resolution. This pressure takes different forms for different countries. For example, France (and other European countries) would agree in exchange for access to the conquered Iraqi oil fields.¹³ Russia would want a guarantee that it would receive the $7-8 billion still owed to it by Hussein's government, and for the US to look the other way while it pursues its attacks on Chechnya. China would want a free hand to pursue the "Islamic rebels" threatening its totalitarian power within its own borders.¹⁴

What is the US seeking with its new resolution? Under the present UNSC resolutions, Iraq's disarmament would lead to a lifting of the brutal sanctions against Iraq. Under the new resolution intended by the US, weapons inspections would lead to, or themselves be, a military invasion of Iraq. That is, if the weapons inspections "fail," then the US would want a free hand to invade Iraq to remove them. In addition, the draft of the new US-proposed UNSC resolution would allow foreign and of course US troops into Iraq to enforce air and ground keep-out "corridors" to and from any place the inspectors might wish to go.¹⁵ This provision would achieve invasion by inspection.¹⁶

Despite its pressure, it now appears as though the United States will not get the kind of UNSC Resolution it wants, since China, Russia and France have come out against the US proposal for the use of force.¹⁷ Some new UNSC resolution may well be passed, but it will not except perhaps in the eyes of the US¹⁸ allow the US to invade Iraq to enforce it. In the meantime we are left to ponder the irony that a nation so concerned with weapons of mass destruction [WMD] is prohibiting weapons inspections, the most effective means for eliminating WMD.

As the nation rushes toward invasion of Iraq, we need more than ever to understand the motivations and probable outcomes of our action. This essay does not address the elements of the two administration's efforts (in the legislature, and at the UN) toward invasion point by point.¹⁹ Instead, I want to provide a broader narrative of recent US-international and US-Iraq relations, so that we might more clearly see the rationale behind the US plans for invasion. I use the word "invasion" advisedly since, as I hope to show in this essay, the US has been conducting siege warfare against Iraq for the past twelve years.

In 1979 Saddam Hussein came to full power in Iraq, by killing his opponents, but also on the strength of a massive social uplift program. Under Hussein, the Ba'ath party virtually eliminated female illiteracy, provided free universal health care, clean water, and free education through graduate level studies for all. By the end of the 1980s, the UN was calling Iraq "an emerging first world nation."

Also in 1979, Iran's Muslim fundamentalists engaged in the largest nonviolent demonstration in history to oust the Shah installed by the US and backed by the US-trained secret police, the Savak. Obviously, then, during the 1980-88 Iraq-Iran War,"We couldn't allow Iran to win," explained American officials.²⁰ The United States supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq even altering our laws so that US companies could sell Iraq the resources for WMDs,²¹ and helping Iraq with satellite targeting for chemical warhead attacks on Iran.²² This support continued through the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja, when the White House intervened to kill the Senate's "Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988," aimed against Iraq.²³

As Hussein's human rights violations became more and more flagrant, the US response was to send a parade of US government representatives to support Hussein Donald Rumsfeld,²⁴ Alan Simpson, James McClure, Robert Dole, Frank Murkowski, together with US Ambassador April Glaspie. Typical of their statements is one from Senator Howard Metzenbaum, announcing himself "a Jew and a staunch supporter of Israel." He went on to tell Saddam that "I have been sitting here and listening to you for about an hour, and I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace."²⁵

The Iraq-Iran war involved the use of chemical warfare, the vast militarization of both societies, and cost some 750,000 casualties on both sides. Yet we did not consider Iraq as a "threat to security and peace" we actually assisted them. It seems then, that our present moral outrage at the crimes of the Iraqi regime absent at the time is at best convenient.²⁶

After the Iran-Iraq War in 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait, a country the US didn't want them to attack. Shunning every attempt at peaceful resolution,²⁷ the US orchestrated "Desert Storm," dropping over 60,000 tons of bombs on Iraq, most of them on the civilian infrastructure. Specifically targeted was the electrical grid from dams to power stations. In effect, the US unplugged every hospital drug and blood refrigeration unit, every life support machine, every incubator in Iraq. Irrigation systems failed. Clean water couldn't be provided, sewage systems broke down. The whole country was flooded with disease-ridden water, "leading to epidemics of cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis, particularly among children."²⁸

As Professor and Holocaust survivor Thomas Nagy has discovered through his research, the US military knew the effects of their attacks on the civilian population and proceeded with them nonetheless.²⁹ As an "unnamed Pentagon source" put it, "People say, `You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage.' Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of sanctions."³⁰

Further, the US and Britain used depleted uranium 660,000 pounds of the stuff in weapons such as rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) to attack Iraq. The residue which has a half-life of 4.5 billion years contaminates the air, land and water, and causes chromosomal radiation damage especially to soft tissue, and pregnant mothers and their fetuses.³¹

Though it had WMD and had used them in its wars, Iraq did not use WMD during Desert Storm probably because the US had threatened massive retaliation with WMD if it did.

But the question remains: if in the midst of this savage attack on its own civilian population, Iraq did not use WMD even on the invading US troops, what exactly is the nature of the "threat" that the administration now feels?

In fact, we might push the question further. With the intentional unleashing of typhus, malaria, E coli, amebic dysentery, and diphtheria on Iraq's civilian population through the destruction of infrastructure and sanctions, we might ask, who is using bacteriological warfare in Iraq? With the massive use of radiological weaponry, who is using WMD in Iraq?

And now, for the past twelve years, since Iraq invaded Kuwait, the United States has insisted that the UN maintain those sanctions on Iraq the most comprehensive sanctions in history effectively putting the entire nation of Iraq under prolonged siege. Fundamentally, "sanctions" mean that Iraq's sale of oil is completely controlled by the UN. Without the purchasing power to repair the vast damage of the Gulf War attacks (95% of Iraq's foreign exchange came from the sale of oil), the siege has extended and exponentially increased the effects of the bombing.

But what about the "oil-for-food" [OfF] program? This program allows Iraq to sell its oil. The money from the sale of oil goes into a UN escrow account in the Bank of Paris in New York City. The UN controls those funds, not Iraq. (That fact should put to rest charges that Iraq "uses oil-for-food money to purchase arms." Iraq may want to, but it can't access the money at all.) The UN disburses the money first for reparations, then to finance its own operations in Iraq, and finally to the suppliers with which Iraq has had to make contracts. If the OfF worked perfectly, it would allot each Iraqi about a dollar a day to exist on. But the besiegers can be clever even then. Enter the veto.

Every contract under the "oil-for-food" deal has to be approved by a committee. Any member of that committee can veto any contract for any reason. The US is a permanent member of that committee. And the US has exercised the veto over 1,500 times in the last 5 years (next is Britain with a paltry 160 vetoes). Sometimes the US exercises a "straight" veto. For example, the US invariably vetoes spare parts to repair the water or sewage systems; invariably vetoes spare parts for oil production, always vetoes communication equipment. The US sometimes vetoes baby milk powder because it has phosphates, and these can be used for bombs. The US vetoes chlorine for water purification because it can be used for chemical warfare. The same with many drugs.

But the really winning strategy is what the UN calls "the problem of complementarity." The US allows life- support machines, then vetoes the computers needed to run them. The US allows dentists' chairs, then vetoes the compressors. The US allows blood bags, then vetoes the catheters. The US allows insulin, then vetoes syringes. The result? The Iraqis "waste" what little money they have on things that don't work. And, the US State Department can point to a warehouse where they store the insulin, waiting for syringes, and say, "Look, they're hoarding medicine! They have it, but they're not distributing it."

And for the record: all present and past UN heads of the oil-for-food program in Iraq, who monitor the distribution of the already inadequate goods that do manage to get into the country, report that there is no hoarding, no diversion, no leakage in the distribution. In fact, two of those program heads, Denis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, have resigned their 30+-year commissions as Assistant Secretary Generals in the UN to protest the sanctions.

Nor have the newest "smart sanctions" advertised as allowing more consumer goods into Iraq greatly helped the Iraqi people. In addition to items already forbidden by UNSC Resolution 687, the new UNSC Resolution 1409 is accompanied by a 300-page "Goods Review List" of items that have to go through the entire approval (and veto) process.³² Items not on the list still have to be approved by the IAEA, the UNMOVIC], and the Office of the Iraq Program [OIP]. Since the UN passage of the "smart sanctions," the US has increased the value of vetoed contracts to nearly $5 billion, reduced its own purchase of Iraqi oil to nearly zero (the US had, through various companies, been buying up to 60% of Iraqi oil), and insisted that the price of Iraqi oil be set after other companies and countries agreed to purchase it. The cumulative effect of these new measures is to reduce the income from the oil-for-food deal by about 2/3rds. And even then, the "smart sanctions" give no cash to the Iraqi people. So even if goods somehow manage to make it through all those obstacles and arrive on the shelves, the people have no money to purchase them.

It is important to remember that this one program was never meant to replace an entire national economy. No amount of tinkering with it will address the fundamental problem: the sanctions have paralyzed the entire economy of Iraq.

What's the result? Three years ago, in August 1999, UNICEF did a study that concluded that the sanctions had cost the lives of half a million Iraqi children under 5 years old.³³ They didn't count 7-year-olds, or 9-year-olds, or people suffering from heart disease, or diabetes, or old folks who fall and break their hip. Just 5-year-olds and under. Half a million children dead from the US-led sanctions. On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our country and my home city, New York, in a brutally criminal and heartless act, killing nearly 3,000 Americans and foreign visitors. Effectively, the US-led sanctions regime takes that same number of toddlers, and kills them and has done so every three weeks in Iraq for the past twelve years.

Yet, in the face such relentless killing of the Iraqi weak and vulnerable, the Iraqis have not struck at the US. They have not suicide-bombed, or attacked with anthrax,³⁴ or had anything to do with the September 11^th, 2001 attacks on the US.³⁵ So what is the nature of the "threat" from Iraq?

We can't forget that for nearly 12 years, the US and UK have been bombing Iraq continually,the longest US bombing campaign since Vietnam. In April, 2000, The Washington Post reported that the US and UK had flown 280,000 sorties over Iraq: sonic booming, bombing, terror. On August 25, 2002, for example, US planes bombed the southern city of Basra, killing eight more people.

On September 30, 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference stating that "Since the Iraqi letter [granting unconditional access to weapons inspectors] arrived two weeks ago, they have fired on coalition aircraft sixty seven times, including fourteen times this past weekend." He went on to assert, "That ought to tell reasonable people something." The implication is that the Iraqi actions are in violation of UN resolutions, and indicate their unwillingness to comply with weapons inspections, which are somehow connected to the US bombing in the no-fly zones.

The problem is that the "no-fly zones" are not authorized by any UN Resolution and are illegal violations of Iraqi sovereignty.³⁶ They were unilaterally imposed by Britain, France and the US. France withdrew in 1998, meaning that the "coalition" consists of Britain and the US only.

The US uses cluster bombs, which are not primarily anti-materiel weapons. Their small fragments are designed to maim to lop off hands or legs. Occasionally, though, the cluster bombs decapitate people, as was the case with young Omran Jawair, who was decapitated in an open field, while shepherding his sheep. When the villagers came out to try to rescue him, they too were cluster-bombed.³⁷

Further, the "no-fly zones" are often "suspended" in the North, to allow Turkish helicopter gun ships and troops into northern Iraq to kill Kurds.³⁸ Recently, Rumsfeld announced an increase in the bombing, and an increase in the targets in Iraq, apparently "softening them up" for the coming invasion.³⁹ On September 26, 2002, one of the members of the Iraq peace team reported the bombing of the Basra airport.

Yet in all those years, Iraq has never been able to shoot down a single jet over its own territory. How then can it possibly threaten the US? We can press the question further. On one of my trips to Iraq, I visited a school which the US had bombed. When the children heard that the Americans had actually come, they were so terrified that many had to be taken home. One was so frightened of the Americans, he actually suffered a seizure as we walked into his classroom. Imagine growing up with that much fear. As I write this, people in the Maryland/DC/Virginia area are being terrorized by a sniper who kills at random. Perhaps we have all seen TV interviews with parents weeping for fear because they can't know when or whether their children might be attacked, and because they cannot protect them. I have visited Iraq several times. This is the same terror that the US bombing has achieved among children and parents in Iraq, sustained now for nearly 12 years. Who is terrorizing whom?

But isn't Saddam Hussein just a bad guy? Doesn't he support terrorism? Didn't he gas his own people? No one questions that Hussein is a dictator, ruling Iraq with an iron fist, eliminating anyone who threatens his power. This in itself, however, does not provide a "just cause" for invasion. Perhaps some form of humanitarian intervention might be called for, but its first step should be elimination of the economic sanctions, which have killed 10s of thousands of times as many Iraqis as the regime has. Further, an invasion on such grounds does not consider the humanitarian disaster that would ensue.

The US State Department has charged that "Iraq provided bases to several terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO)."⁴⁰

Just a cursory examination of these groups should give us pause. The Mujahedin-e-Khalq [MEK], is a radical group seeking to overthrow the government of Iran. Perhaps support for such a group might be understandable, given the hostility between Iran and Iraq that exploded into war in 1980-88. What is less understandable is that this very same group has offices in Washington DC, not far from the White House, and is supported by several influential people, including former Sen. Robert Toricelli, Rep. Gary Ackerman,⁴¹ and Sen. Jesse Helms.⁴² The PKK is one of the two major groups of Kurds in the north of Iraq, vying for control of the population. The Baghdad regime of course has relations with both groups, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK] and the PKK. Further, the PKK was one of the groups the US encouraged immediately after the Gulf War.⁴³ With all this information, it is at best difficult to determine just how seriously to take the "terrorist threat" from Iraq especially since none of these groups has expressed any desire to attack the US. The one group not listed as "supported" by Iraq is al-Qaida. The resolutely secular Iraq regime and that radical religious group find themselves in direct opposition to each other, and all attempts to link them have failed.

As for Hussein's "gassing his own people" in the Kurdish village of Halabja in March, 1988, the record is not as clear as the media would like us to believe. Dr. Stephen Pelletiere, recently retired as professor of National Security Affairs at the US Army War College, studied the gas attack on the Kurds and published "Lessons Learned: The Iran-Iraq War,"⁴⁵ along with Leif Rosenberger and Lt Colonel Dr. Douglas Johnson. That report became "the handbook- the bible - that was issued to all US military units for strategic and tactical guidance during Operation Desert Storm," Pelletiere said.⁴⁶ The report states that "Most of the civilians killed at Halabja - and it's very unlikely that as many as 5,000 died - were killed by Iranian poison gas."⁴⁷ Pelletiere ends the interview by stating quite frankly: "Bush and Blair want a `regime change' simply because if sanctions were to be lifted then Saddam's regime would favour Russian and French oil companies rather than US or British multinationals. This dispute has little to do with any war on terrorism. And it is quite wrong that we should base public policy on propaganda and lies."⁴⁸

But why did Hussein kick out the weapons inspectors in the first place?In fact, it was Richard Butler who ordered the weapons inspectors out, as reported in the Times by Josh Friedman on Dec. 17, 1998: "Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM." Butler presented his report to the UN after days of "consultation" with American leaders. He ordered the inspectors pulled out without authorization from the UN Security Council, a move that was condemned by Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov. Further, according to chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Iraqis were "set up" to fail the inspections requirements.⁴⁹

Besides, Ritter asserts, Iraq had been effectively disarmed from its WMD by 1996. Other weapons inspectors, like Raymond Zalinskas⁵⁰ and Rolf Ekeus,⁵¹ agree with him. All WMD production facilities were destroyed. All means for long-range delivery were destroyed. In the four years since the weapons inspectors have been in Iraq, Iraq did not have the economic resources to a) rebuild its factories, b) research, c) develop, d) weaponize, and e) test such weapons. Even if it did, such manufacture would require a distinctive infrastructure railing, a network of access roads, immense power sources and massive construction activity (the more if it were underground, as some fantasies would have us fear). Iraq would have to store and then deploy quantities of WMD sufficiently massive to be used in warfare, and also acquire the means to deliver them. Presently, six billion-dollar US spy satellites make twelve passes over Iraq every 24 hours. These satellites, which have a day-time imaging resolution of four to six inches, would have spotted such an enormous undertaking.⁵² Yet they have discovered nothing in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

In fact, US intelligence did discover a facility testing the poison gas ricin, in northern Iraq late this summer. But "U.S. officials decided it was not enough of a threat to justify taking military action."⁵³ Why not? We should note that this activity was in the Kurdish north, a place not under Hussein's control and, more significantly, among a people the US hopes to enlist for their attacks against the rest of Iraq.

Thus, when the US discovers actual WMD development and testing among its potential allies in Iraq, it does nothing. However, when it has no evidence of WMD destruction in the rest of Iraq and even expert testimony to the contrary it is prepared to undertake a massive attack, killing thousands, or tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN has continuously inspected Iraq for nuclear weapons. These inspections have proceeded even after Butler withdrew the UNSCOM inspectors. The last was in January, 2002, when the chief inspector Anrzey Pietruzewski reported that Iraq had cooperated fully with the inspectors. "During our inspection, representatives from the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission were present for the whole time and all help that is necessary to perform the inspections was provided by Iraqi authorities." ⁵⁴

For the record, the IAEA never reported that Iraq was "six months away" from producing a nuclear weapon. This charge was repeated by Tony Blair in a September 7 news conference, and confirmed by President Bush. Much of the press took this to mean that Iraq was six months away in 1998. "Clarification" from White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan was that the President was referring to the initial report from the IAEA in 1991. However, IAEA spokesperson Mark Gwozdecky refuted both statements on behalf of the IAEA, saying that the IAEA had never issued any such report. It is instructive to read the entire story of this misinformation, including The Washington Times' laconic observation: "Many news agencies including The Washington Times reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times."⁵⁵ The point, I believe, is to cultivate fear, which requires a certain degree of ignorance.

Finally, Ritter has been touring the US, telling people that the US used the information he uncovered during his investigations to bomb civilian targets in an attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein and his cadre.⁵⁶

Now that Iraq has agreed to let the weapons inspectors back in, we might ask what guarantees Iraq would have that the inspections would not again be used to further the declared US plan to remove or assassinate Iraq's leadership? When Iraq requested such assurances from Kofi Annan, the UN Security Council refused to consider them. We might ask: What does "unfettered access everywhere" mean? Every field, every church, every mosque, every home? How could such an inspection regime ever be concluded? How could it ever be completely complied with? In my visits to Iraq I have seen and heard how the insistence on "unfettered access" was used to make compliance impossible, and so extend the sanctions regime.⁵⁷ It is a legitimate concern that such specious "non-compliance" would now be used to justify an invasion.

To summarize, what led to the collapse of the first inspections regime was not Iraqi noncompliance, but US interference. This interference continues to this day, as the US holds up the inspections while seeking a stronger resolution. When Hussein finally yielded to threats of invasion (and to the pleadings of the Arab League, and past UN officials) and offered to re-invite the inspectors "without conditions," the "news made United States officials furious,"⁵⁸ and the US undertook the two-part strategy for invasion described at the beginning of this essay. It looks as though, to put it bluntly, "The White House's biggest fear is that UN weapons inspectors will be allowed to go in."⁵⁹

But what if the weapons inspectors (who spent almost 8 years with "unfettered access" in Iraq), and the ongoing International Atomic Energy Agency inspections, and the monitoring by the spy satellites, are all wrong? Let's imagine that Iraq has managed (with little money and less materiel) to rebuild its factories, and to research, develop, test, weaponize and store and then deploy quantities of WMD sufficiently massive to be used in warfare, and to acquire the means to deliver them. Let's imagine that, while the Kurds in the north of Iraq killed a few animals in a closed room with ricin and were detected by the US, this enormous undertaking by Iraq has somehow managed to escape US attention. What if somehow, Iraq really does have weapons of mass destruction? Then an invasion would surely be the wrong way to go about getting them, in fact, would probably assure their being used.

The government of Iraq had such weapons during the 1991 attacks of the Gulf War. It did not use them, though it had used them before in war. They restrained themselves in this war evidently because the US threatened massive retaliation with WMD if Iraq did use its WMD. This deterrence had force, because a national government wants to stay in power; even dictators tend to want to have a country to dictate over.

But if a ground invasion goes forward, and the "regime change" is about to take place, then the force of deterrence is lacking. The regime, now having nothing to lose, would use these weapons.⁶⁰

In another and very likely scenario (given the aftermath of the Afghanistan attacks), a ground invasion could cause Iraq to implode into civil war, with rival factions struggling for control. If such a faction or factions gained control of these WMDs, deterrence would have no force on them, since they are not in charge of the whole country. Some faction(s) may even be suicidal, simply wishing to destroy enemies at all costs. And the weapons would be used. Or people may steal the weapons, escape with them through borders made porous by the collapse of the government and by the movement of refugees. Then the weapons could turn up in Tel Aviv, or any other city. ⁶¹

Thus an invasion for "regime change" would increase the likelihood of the Iraq's use of WMD to near certainty. An invasion would be exactly the wrong thing to do if Iraq did have WMD. The fact that the US military is planning such an invasion is, I submit, the surest sign that the US knows that Iraq doesn't have them. The best way to address the problem of WMD remains a return of weapons inspectors, certainly not invasion.

OK, so if the sanctions and bombing and vetoes are not about weapons inspections, or terror, what are they for?

It may be, as Sen. Robert Byrd suggested, invasion plans distract the American public from domestic problems the falling stock market, job loss, housing problems.⁶³

I submit, however, that the US wants to control Iraq's oil the second largest oil reserves in the world. Anthony Cordesman, of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said that the issue for the US was as much the security of the Gulf as access to particular oilfields: "You are looking down the line to a world in 2020 when reliance on Gulf oil will have more than doubled. The security of the Gulf is an absolutely critical issue."⁶⁴ Gerald Butt, Gulf editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, said: "The removal of Saddam is, in effect, the removal of the last threat to the free flow of oil from the Gulf as a whole."⁶⁵

During the July 31-August 1 hearings on Iraq in the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the ranking representative of the Republican Party, Senator Richard Lugar (R-In), submitted a strategy for urging other countries to join the US in invading Iraq: The US should tell other countries that ". . . we are going to run the oil business. We are going to run it well, we are going to make money; and it's going to help pay for the rehabilitation of Iraq because there is money there." The US could then put pressure on other countries by saying, ". . . furthermore, if you want to be involved in that business, whether you're Russians or French or whoever, you must be with us in the beginning of this business. We're going to set up the business together. We're going in together. Because once we get there, we're going to control the oil business."⁶⁶

In a revealing article, reporters Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway write, "A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq," noting that "American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia."⁶⁷ The US could use its control of these oil fields to coerce members of the UNSC into cooperation for an invasion.

With the US troops finding themselves increasingly unwelcome in Saudi Arabia, it would make Machiavellian sense to transfer them to a supine, post-invasion Iraq.

The US continues to give many reasons for the siege reasons that prove specious upon the slightest examination. But the 12-year siege has failed to break the will of Iraq to resist. With the failure and possible collapse of the siege, the US is now considering intensifying its ongoing war for the oil resources of Iraq with a massive ground attack.

We have seen that initiating a ground attack against Iraq would be entirely unjustified. I hope we have seen that maintaining the genocidal siege of sanctions is unjustifiable as well. If we need to present the case against an invasion, there are other arguments as well.

First, the loss of lives. Iraq will be attacked with the now standard American military policy of "overwhelming force," or, as Bush put it, "the full force and fury of the United States military will be unleashed."⁶⁸ In effect, this policy entails a total obliteration of any possible military opposition or threat. Any honest military officers will tell you that their job is to achieve this objective with little or no loss of troops. That means that if an officer suspects that a grove might have weapons to kill troops, artillery will be called down on it. The same goes for a village, town or city. Thus any ground invasion will mean massive loss of life, mostly Iraqi civilian lives. This loss will be intensified by the utter collapse of whatever life-sustaining civilian infrastructure the Iraqis have been able to cobble together.⁶⁹ Further, according to the January 2002 "Nuclear Posture Review," the U.S. has considerably lowered the threshold for a nuclear attack against Iraq.⁷⁰

The Iraqis may be cowed by such an invasion, but it is sheer delusion to think that after 12 years of US-led bombing, sanctions, vetoes, and hundreds of thousands killed, they would then embrace the invading US troops as they kill more Iraqis.

I cannot see that the "direct casualties" of US invasion troops would be great, though Major General Patrick Cordingley, who led the British Armoured Brigade in the 1991 attacks against Iraq, has estimated 37,000 casualties among the 250,000 invading forces.⁷¹ This is the standard figure (15%) for casualties for invaders. I believe that the figure for direct casualties in this case is high, since the Iraqis have no real defense.⁷² Since the 1991 attacks against Iraq, 7,758 Gulf War veterans have died, and nearly 200,000 have filed for medical and compensation benefits.⁷³ If the US post-war casualties in any way resemble the post-war casualties of the 1991 attacks, we can expect significant suffering and death for the invaders. Any death or suffering Iraqi or American is tragic, especially if it could be avoided, and especially if it is for economic gain.

Second, International Law and the UN. With the exception of England, Israel and perhaps Turkey, none of the 184 other nations in the UN supports the US plan for invading Iraq. In fact, Nelson Mandela called the US a "threat to world peace" in its actions toward Iraq.⁷⁴

Britain's prime minister Tony Blair is supportive, but his backing is weak. Even after Bush's UN speech and Blair's endorsement, British polls showed a majority against the invasion.⁷⁵ And this was before Iraq's unconditional acceptance of the return of UN inspectors. Blair commissioned a group of Whitehall lawyers to establish a case for the invasion, but it backfired: the lawyers agreed that it would be against international law to invade.⁷⁶ He finally acceded to a debate in Parliament, but refused to allow a vote. Both Robin Cook, Leader of the Commons, and Clare Short, Secretary of State for International Development, have "broken ranks" with Blair.⁷⁷ The presentation of his "dossier"⁷⁸ about Iraq's crimes still hasn't convinced the British public to back the US invasion of Iraq.⁷⁹ On Saturday, September 28, 2002, British protestors staged what The London Independent called "one of the biggest peace demonstrations seen in a generation" (9/29/02). Estimates of the rally ranged from 150,000 (police) to 400,000 (the organizers, and some London newspapers). Predictably, The New York Times and The Washington Post failed to give it much attention, assigning one sentence, and two sentences, respectively, in the middle of other articles.

The UN Security Council is in favor of having its resolutions obeyed in Iraq as with all nations. No one, however, has acceded to any military action (including bombing) in Iraq if the UNSC demands are not met.

A further note on the UNSC's reaction to Bush's speech: by "agreeing" that Iraq might be an "international threat," the UNSC kept the discussion of Iraq under its own jurisdiction. If it were not a matter of international security, then the issue would no longer be under the authority of the Security Council and would be a matter for the General Assembly. The Security Council especially the five permanent members would be quite reluctant to have the question of Iraq pass out of its control.

Thus the planned invasion can be seen as a widening of the US break from international law and conventions, and therefore threatening to the already fragile international community structure.

Third, the Middle East.The Arab world watches as Israel (which possesses WMD) presses on with its program to eliminate the Palestinians, in defiance of scores of UN resolutions most recently September 24, 2002.⁸⁰ Additionally, the US has exercised sole veto against dozens of resolutions that would have sanctioned Israel for defying the resolutions passed by the UNSC, and the threat of the US veto has killed many more. At best, the Arab countries see a double standard at work between the unconditional support for Israel's policies, and the cruel attack on the people of Iraq. The Arab leaders who enjoy the support of the US (like the al-Fahd family in Saudi, or the al-Sabbah family in Kuwait) would be threatened and perhaps even overthrown. An invasion would at least mean immense and lasting turmoil in the rest of the Middle East,⁸¹ with more repression in response,⁸² and might even precipitate attacks on Israel as well.⁸³ The head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, has said a U.S. strike would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East.⁸⁴

All the Arab nations (including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) have, in the Arab League, called for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.⁸⁵ This solidarity with Iraq was reiterated at the Beirut Summit in March, 2002.⁸⁶ Looking at all those factors, together with the "war on terrorism" (which targets Muslims almost exclusively in the US⁸⁷ and abroad) the Arab countries have begun to decrease their trade with the US significantly in the last year.⁸⁸

Further, Arab states have formally rejected participation in the US invasion. Saudi Arabia has refused to allow the US to use its soil for bases for the attack, unless approved by the entire international community. We should note that these nearby nations do not feel the "threat" from Iraq that the US seems to feel.

Fourth, the Cost.⁸⁹ The US insistence that it will "go it alone" in Iraq⁹⁰ means that 100% of the low estimate of $70 billion⁹¹ will have to be borne solely by US taxpayers. (80% of the $60 billion price tag for the 1991 Gulf War [$80 billion in 2002 dollars] was borne by US allies; the rest by the US alone.) We could ask if this money might be better spent domestically, especially if there are nonviolent and more effective ways of dealing with the problems.

Further, a "spike" in Middle East oil prices could lead to a world-wide recession. Every recession in the past 30 years has been preceded by such a spike. Even the normally conservative IMF has cautioned that the invasion of Iraq would "not be a very healthy development."⁹²

Fifth, the "Day After." Even if invasion of Iraq were successful in overthrowing Hussein, we need to consider the consequences. What kind of regime would replace the present regime? The US is not known for establishing democracies.⁹³ (Of course, "imposing democracy" is a contradiction in terms.) The possible "successors" to Saddam have been called by the British Sunday Herald, "Corrupt, feckless, and downright dangerous. Some say they even make the `Butcher of Baghdad' look good."⁹⁴ One of them, General Nizar Al-Khazraji is accused by many human rights groups of heading the chemical attack on Halabja in the Kurdish area of Iraq.

We should have no illusions, therefore, about the US government's intentions for Iraq. Congressman Tom Lantos of California, leader of the Democratic Party caucus in the House of Representatives' International Affairs Committee, recently said to a member of Israel's Knesset: "We'll be rid of the bastard [Saddam] soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you."⁹⁵ His pro-dictatorship remarks reiterate the US policy which supported Hussein in the first place, and should prompt us to examine the myth proposed by President Bush in his September 12, 2002 speech to the UN, that "The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq."

Further, it is possible that Iraq might split up, with an ensuing civil war. Such a war, involving the Kurds (whose population spans four states) and the Shi'a Muslims, might spread throughout the region. How much would the US have to invest in personnel and resources to control Iraq after such an invasion? How long would the people stand for any imposed government? The mythical "Afghanistan model" doesn't work. As James Rubin, former assistant secretary of State points out, the US doesn't control Afghanistan; it barely controls the capitalKabul.⁹⁶

Such a lawless attack can only encourage more lawlessness in international relations. Especially for peoples without military and economic power, this lawlessness would take the form of what we would call "terror."

Sixth, the Loss of Liberty at Home. As a society becomes more and more militarized, it becomes by definition less free. As I write, some 1200 people in the U.S. are being held in secret, incommunicado, without charge, and without access to an attorney. Most are of Arabic descent, some are U.S. citizens. Further, the passing of the "Patriot Act" in October, 2002, has brought alarm to many civil rights groups.⁹⁷

Finally, the Immorality. In a magnificent and courageous statement, 2500 British church leaders, including Rowan Williams, Archbishop-elect of Canterbury, wrote to Prime Minister Tony Blair, declaring that an invasion of Iraq would be "deplorable," against UN conventions and Christian principles. Calling for Mr. Blair to support a peaceful and legally justified solution to the problem of Iraq, the statement added: "We deplore any military action that regards the deaths of innocent men, women and children as a price worth paying in fighting terrorists, since this is to fight terror with terror."⁹⁸

When Jimmy Carter received the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel committee chair Gunnar Berge said the judges' choice of the former US president "can and must be interpreted as a criticism of the position of the administration currently sitting in the US towards Iraq."⁹⁹

In early September,2002, Sant'Egidio, a lay Catholic movement famed for conflict resolution and promotion of human rights, called its annual interfaith meeting. Among the over 400 attendees, condemnation for the US "war on terror" was intense and virtually universal. Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Ramzi Garmo of Tehran, Iran, asked, "If Sept. 11 had happened anywhere else, would it have had the same impact?" Garmo asked. "Take Iraq as an example. Hundreds of thousands have died because one very powerful nation wants the embargo to continue. What is the difference between Iraqi children and the victims in New York? Is American blood worth more than blood in other countries?" His question drew "strong applause."¹⁰⁰

Experience has shown that, unfortunately, we cannot expect such a strong stance from the Christian leadership of the US, with the possible exception of the Presbyterian Church. In fact, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, apostolic nuncio of the Holy See to the United Nations, has criticized American Catholic leaders' response to the crisis: "Instead of `Holy God We Bless [sic] Thy Name,' many were singing `God Bless America,'" Martin said. "We can't allow other things to slip into our message."¹⁰¹

What to do?Despite claims of "working through the UN," US armed forces are being built up massively in the Gulf area.¹⁰² This activity imparts a psychological, economic and military momentum to invasion that is difficult to resist.¹⁰³ It is difficult to believe that anything will deter the present administration from an invasion of Iraq.

Nevertheless, conscience and for some of us, our faith commitment requires that we seek to oppose invasion. We should begin by prayer and fasting, and by what Gandhi and other nonviolent theorists called "self-purification." Then, several courses of action are open to those opposing the Administration's ongoing war against Iraq.

Knowing that the legislature has capitulated in the struggle against invasion, one course left to us, within the system, is to petition the White House with phone calls, faxes, letters and demonstrations. (Senator Byrd recommended these actions to his supporters, in the above-mentioned speech.).

A second course is suggested by Geov Parrish. The massive numbers of protestors across the country have to form themselves into a political force with the capability of changing policy. This would require long-term planning by the broad spectrum of organizers.¹⁰⁴

Finally, we might consider the question whether the US government has become less and less truthful and less and less representative of the people. Legislative offices reported receiving faxes, emails and phone calls that ran five and ten and even twenty-t- one against the resolution eventually adopted by Congress (see n.2). Recent polls show the US populace is opposed to an invasion without support from the UN or allies.¹⁰⁵ Even more, many citizens are concerned with the irregularities of the last presidential election, when the Supreme Court effectively appointed the President. They are concerned with the possible abrogation of the Constitution, specifically in the recent passing of warmaking powers from the Congress to the President and increasingly, in the operation of a mercenary army not under the control of Congress.¹⁰⁶

Up until now, the peace movement has been working with the overall nonviolent analysis of Martin Luther King. But if this charge that the government is increasingly less truthful and representative proves upon careful investigation and deep communal reflection to be well-founded, then I submit that the peace movement must change its paradigm. We must adopt the nonviolent analysis of Mohandas K. Gandhi, relying more on boycotts, strikes, non-cooperation and direct nonviolent confrontation to oppose a power that has disqualified itself from legitimate governance.

Peace groups have much information and many different venues for actions to challenge our policy toward Iraq. My group, headed by 3-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly, is Voices in the Wilderness: (1460 West Carmen Avenue, Chicago, IL 60640; 773-784-8065, www.vitw.org). Also helpful are the Fellowship of Reconciliation (521 N. Broadway, Nyack, NY 10960; 845-358-4601, www.forusa.org), Pax Christi (532 W. 8th Street Erie, PA 16502; 814-453-4955, www.paxchristiusa.org, and the American Friends Service Committee (1501 Cherry St. Philadelphia, PA 19102; phone: 215/241-7170, www.afsc.org). The National Network to End The War Against Iraq (www.endthewar.org) is a coalition of most groups opposed to the ongoing war against Iraq. There you can find and sign a "pledge of resistance," promising to undertake direct nonviolent action when the US invades Iraq.

The most hopeful and encouraging actions are undertaken by "Peaceful Tomorrows," an association of those who have lost family members in the 9/11 attacks. Contact David Potorti, Co-Director/ Eastern U.S. Coordinator, ( david@peacefultomorrows.org; 919-466-9355; PO Box 4035, Cary, North Carolina 27519-4035. www.peacefultomorrows.org).

Voices and Christian Peacemaker Teams send delegations to Iraq, to express solidarity with the Iraqi people, and to bring home the truth that is hidden by our government and media. At present, Voices has an "Iraq Peace Team" in Iraq, seeking to interpose themselves between the Iraqis and any invasionary forces (www.iraqpeaceteam.org). All these organizations especially Voices would appreciate donations for the ongoing struggle for justice for the people of Iraq and for the people of the US.

In Conclusion. Whatever our actions, I believe that we must always struggle against fear especially the fear of death which leads to acts of immorality and cowardice. I believe that now is the time to employ whatever spiritual strategies we have developed to overcome fear and act out of compassion and justice. If we do this, I believe there is hope for the people of Iraq, and for us.

Endnotes

[1] I use this phrasing advisedly. The push to attack Iraq has for the first time explicitly abrogated the Constitution: �Congress shall have the power �  to declare war� (Article I., Sec. 8, Cl. 11).  In his brief speech to the Senate, Senator Robert Byrd expressed the same concern.  http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_3.html.  The text of the Joint Resolution can be found at: http://msnbc.com/news/816034.asp.

[2] Byrd, op. cit.,. reported receiving nearly 20,000 phone calls and 50,000 emails supporting his position. Other legislators reported similar outpouring of resistance.  In many states � and here in New York City [www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--warprotest-clinto1010oct10.story] � protestors �sat-in� in legislator�s offices to protest the decision to grant the President power to make war.  Organizers also anticipate 10s of thousands of protestors on October 26, 2002 in Washington, DC, and in many other cities across the nation.

[3] Jim Abrams, �House Approves Iraq Resolution,� The Washington Post, October 10, 2002. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7726-2002Oct10.html.  The House vote was 293-133. The Senate vote was 77-23. Passage of the joint resolution that would authorize President Bush to use the U.S. military as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend U.S. national security against Iraq and enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The president would be required to report to Congress, no later than 48 hours after using force, his determination that diplomacy or other peaceful means would not ensure U.S. national security against Iraq or allow enforcement of U.N. resolutions and that using force is consistent with anti-terrorism efforts. The resolution also states that it would give specific statutory authorization under the War Powers Resolution. The president also would be required to report to Congress every 60 days on actions relevant to the resolution. www.c-span.org/capitolspotlight/vote.asp

[4] The complete speech may be found at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[5] Detailed critiques of the President�s speech can be found at �Detailed Analysis of October 7 Speech by Bush on Iraq.� Institute for Public Accuracy www.accuracy.org/bush/, Robert Scheer, �Truth on Iraq Seeps Through,� Los Angeles Times, October 8, 2002, www.latimes.com/la-oe-scheer8oct08,0,5814986.column, Robert Jensen, �Bush's Leaps of Illogic Don't Answer People's Questions About War ,� http://commondreams.org/views02/1008-08.htm, Robert Fisk, �What the US President Wants Us to Forget,� The Independent, October 9, 2002, http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=340836, Anthony Arnove, �Bush Peddles War,� ZNet Commentary, October 9, 2002, www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-10/09arnove.cfm, Simon Tisdall, �America�s Great Misleader,� The Guardian, October 8, 2002, www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,806965,00.html

[6] A revealing and disturbing report of this pressure can be found in Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, �Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War,� Philadelphia Inquirer, October 8, 2002. www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/4234259.htm

[7] See for example, Julian Borger, �White House �Exaggerating Iraqi Threat,�: Bush�s Televised Address Attacked by US Intelligence,� The Guardian, October 9, 2002. www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,807194,00.html

[8] A 1964 uncritically accepted, yet false report by the Lyndon Johnson administration of an attack on U.S. ship, to justify a massive increase of military attacks on Vietnam.  See Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon, �30-Year Anniversary: Tonkin Gulf Lie Launched Vietnam War,� Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR], July 27, 1994. www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

[9] The entire speech is available at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

[10] For the official UN text of this offer, see: www.un.org/Docs/sc/letters/2002/s2002-1034.pdf

[11] �Iraq made concession to UN over interviews, Blix letter shows,� Yahoo News, October 9, 2002. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/021009/1/33kts.html

[12] For a brief and biting summary of the US coercion of the UNSC vote, see John Pilger, �Diplomacy?� in The New Statesman, September 19, 2002.

[13] See the quote from Senator Lugar, below.

[14] In August, the US added the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (opposed to Chinese rule) to its list of proscribed terrorist groups. For a list of other �deals� expected to be made, see Tom Raum, �Bush Administration's Iraq Campaign Includes Behind-Scenes Bartering ,� AP September 21, 2002. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020921/ap_to_po/iraq_dealmaking_2

[15] For this analysis, see Robert Fisk, �Nato Used The Same Old Trick When It Made Milosevic
An Offer He Could Only Refuse,� The Independent, October 4, 2002.  http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=339343

[16] See George Monbiot, �Inspection as Invasion,� The Guardian, October 8, 2002.  www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,806610,00.html

[17] Caroline Overington, �Three Big Powers Tell US It's Wrong on Iraq,� Sydney Morning Herald, September 30, 2002.

www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/29/1033283388011.htm  It is not surprising that this fact has not found its way into many US mainstream newspapers.

[18] For example, the US has offered to remove the phrase �all necessary means� from the enforcement clause of the proposed UNSC resolution, and replace it with �consequences.� This would be interpreted by the US , especially in the light of the wording of HJ Res. 114, as warranting a ground invasion. See also: Steve LeBlanc, �Annan: U.N. Security Council Will Likely Adopt Two-Part Iraq Resolution,� AP, October 11, 2002. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021011/ap_wo_en_po/us_kofi_annan_1

[19] Phyllis Bennis presents an excellent point by point refutation of the proposed measure presently before the House and Senate, as well as a point by point analysis of the flaws of Bush�s UN address.  See www.ips-dc.org.

[20] Patrick E. Tyler,  �Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas,� New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p.1 www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/international/middleeast/18CHEM.html

[21] "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War," Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with Respect to Export Administration, reports of May 25, 1994 and October 7, 1994. See also, Matt Kelley, �U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s,� AP September 30.  http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_bioweapons  These reports were re-read into the Senate record during the Hyde hearings in September, 2002, which can be read at: www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

[22] Tyler, p. 1

[23] George P. Shultz, Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State, (New York: Charles Scribner�s Sons, 1993), pg. 238.  Cf. also, Noam Chomsky  "What We Say Goes": The Middle East in the New World Order,  A Post-War Teach-in April 4, 1991, published in Z Magazine, May 1991 ,  Vol. 1, No. 5; www.zmag.org/chomsky/index.cfm

[24] The same, as testified to by Former Reagan official and National Security Council staffer Howard Teicher in his affidavit on �Iraqgate.�  www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm  See the most recent reports of his visit to and support of Hussein in Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, �How Saddam Happened,� Newsweek, September 23, 2002.  www.msnbc.com/news/807688.asp

[25] As reported by Robert Fisk, �Saddam Hussein: The last great tyrant,� The Independent, December 30, 2000. www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=40447

[26] For more on the US past and present stances, see Robert Fisk, �America's case for war is built on blindness, hypocrisy and lies: George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are wilfully ignoring the realities of the Middle East. The result can only be catastrophic,� The Independent, Sunday, September 15, 2002. http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=333275

[27] G. Simon Harak, S. J., Hypertexting the Gulf War," Cross Currents, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 1991-92), 506-520.

[28] Leon Eisenberg, M.D, �The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters -- Human Costs of Economic Sanctions,� New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336(17).Apr 24, 1997,p. 1248.

[29] Thomas Nagy, �The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply,� www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html

[30] Barton Gellman, �Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets,� The Washington Post, June 23, 1991, Sunday, p. A.1.

[31] There is a growing body of literature on depleted uranium [DU] that requires attention.  For a thorough introduction, see www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/index.html

[32] See �Annex to the letter dated 3 May 2002 from the Deputy Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council: Goods review list.� http://daccess-ods.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/389/54/PDF/N0238954.pdf?OpenElement

[33] UNICEF report - Child and Maternal Mortality Survey, August 1999 www.unicef.org/reseval/iraqr.htm (summary: www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm)

[34] Scott Ritter, �Don't blame Saddam for this one: There is no evidence to suggest Iraq is behind the anthrax attack,� The Guardian October 19, 2001. www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4280517,00.html

[35] Despite a concerted effort to link Iraq with �9/11,� no evidence has been found.  Even when the CIA went through all the paper and computers captured during the attack on Afghanistan, there was no record anywhere of any contact between the Taliban, or Osama bin Laden, and Iraq.

[36] See �No Fly Zones: The Legal Position,� BBC News, February 19, 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1175950.stm

[37] Edward Cody, �Under Iraqi Skies, A Canvas Of Death; Tour Of Villages Reveals Human Cost Of U.S.-Led Sorties In 'No-Fly' Zones,� The Washington Post, June 16, 2000 ; p. A01

[38] See John Pilger, �Britain and America�s pilots are blowing the cover on our so-called �humanitarian� no-fly zone,� The New Statesman, March 19, 2001.  http://pilger.carlton.com/print/52580

[39] Robert Burns, �In a switch, U.S. pilots attack targets that are more damaging to Iraq's air

defenses,� AP September 16, 2002. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020917/ap_wo_en_po/us_iraq_airstrikes_4

[40] Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, �Patterns of Global Terrorism,� May 21, 2002. www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001/html/10249.htm

[41] James Ridgeway and Camelia Fard, �With Friends Like These,� The Village Voice, December 5-11, 2001.

[42] Joseph Brewda, �Lord Avebury: Human Rights for the Raj,� Executive Intelligence Review, October 13, 1995. www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2241_avebury_intro.html

[43] Amin Kazak, Ph.D., �Kurds and Human Rights in Iraq and Turkey,� Fourth World Bulletin, February 13, 1993. www.cudenver.edu/fwc/Issue4/kurds-1.html

[44] �U.S. Welcomes News of Abu Nidal�s Death,� CNN August 20, 2002. http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/index.html

[45] Available at www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/

[46] Kevin Dowling, �Top US Expert Brands Blair as �Liar� over Iraq,� Globe-Intel September 10, 2002. www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?globeintel+86

[47] Ibid. �The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds. The Iraqis did fire mustard gas into Halabja, after the Iranians had attacked and occupied the town, but despite its fearsome reputation mustard gas is an incapacitating agent, rather than an efficient killer. Slightly more than two per cent of those exposed to mustard gas attack can be expected to die.�

[48] Ibid.

[49] See for example, The Wisdom Fund, �Clinton Manufactured Iraq Crisis, Violated Constitution,� Dec. 22, 1998, with references to The Washington Post reports, quotes from Ritter in The Washington Times, reports from The MacLaughlin Group, etc. www.twf.org/News/Y1998/19981222-IraqAttack.html; In Carola Hoyos, Nick George and Roula Khalaf �Weapons Inspections Were 'Manipulated,'� The Financial Times, July 29, 2002, Rolf Ekeus revealed that the US used the inspectors for espionage; it had also �pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as the justification for a direct military action.�  www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/us/0729ft.htm

[50] In an interview on NPR on February 13, 1998, Zalinskas said, �UNSCOM has destroyed all the chemical facilities, the chemical weapons facilities, and also all known chemical weapons. ... In the biological area, UNSCOM has destroyed the dedicated biological weapons facility at al-Hakam, plus other ones at other institutes.  And as far as we know, they have no biological weapons stored up.�

[51] For a professional evaluation of the effectiveness of the inspections, see Rolf Ekeus, �Yes, Let's Go Into Iraq � With an Army of Inspectors,� Washington Post, September 14, 2002, B1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16366-2002Sep14?language=printer

[52] For a complete report on these satellites and their capacities over Iraq, see Craig Covault, �Secret NRO Recons Eye Iraqi Threats,� Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 16, 2002.  www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020916/aw23.htm

[53] Robert Burns, �U.S. Said to Decline Iraq Lab Moves,� AP Wire, Aug. 20, 2002.dailynews.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=542&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20020820/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_weapons_9

[54] January 31, 2002, Reuters, �Iraq Co-Operated with Nuclear Inspection � IAEA� http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/nm/20020131/wl/iraq_nuclear_iaea_dc_1.html

[55] Joseph Curl, �Agency Disavows Report On Iraq Arms,� Washington Times, September 27, 2002 www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm

[56] See also �Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation,� Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting [FAIR] September 24, 2002. www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html

[57] See my short article at www.ecn.org/golfo/eng/articles/doc4.html

[58] Julia Preston with Todd S. Purdum, �Bush's Push on Iraq at U.N.: Headway, Then New Barriers,� New York Times, September 21, 2002.  www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/international/middleeast/22NATI.html?ex=1033272000&en=835fa64fe482c339&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[59] Top US foreign policy aide, quoted in Time Magazine, May 13, 2002, p. 38.

[60] The CIA shares this same assessment.  See Tabassum Zakaria, �CIA Says Iraq Unlikely to Strike US Unless Provoked,� Reuters, October 9, 2002. http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1552565#

[61] For a similar analysis to the previous two paragraphs see, Debora MacKenzie, �Iraq invasion could �worsen terrorist threat,��  The New Scientist, September 18, p. 7. www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992809

[62] But see, for example, David Corn, editor of The Nation, �Bush at the UN: The Charade before the Crusade,� The Nation, September 10, 2002.  www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=99

[63] Paul J. Nyden, �Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says,� The Charleston Gazette, September 21, 2002, p. 1  www.wvgazette.com/display_story.php3?sid=200209213 The entire speech presents many excellent questions that server to derail the plunge toward war.  Also see Alexander Cockburn, �The Dogs of War, The Bears of Wall Street,� Counterpunch, September 25, 2002.  www.counterpunch.org/cockburn0925.html

[64] Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson, �West Sees Glittering Prizes Ahead in Giant Oilfields,� The Times {London], July 11, 2002, www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-352935,00.html  also at: www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0711-02.htm. For a cogent analysis of the �Cheney Report� (www.energy.gov/HQPress/releases01/maypr/national_energy_policy.pdf), The US�s growing dependence on foreign oil and the implications for the �war on terrorism,� see Michael Klare, �Oil Moves the War Machine,� The Progressive, June, 2002.  www.progressive.org/June%202002/klare0602.html. Recommended also is his Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 2002).

[65] Theodoulou and Watson, op. cit. Those who have struggled against NAFTA and other �globalization� strategies, understand what �free flow� of goods means.

[66] S. Hrg. 107-658, Hearings To Examine Threats, Responses, And Regional Considerations Surrounding Iraq, Hearings before the Committee On Foreign Relations United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, July 31^st and August 2^nd, 2002, pp. 227-28 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_senate_hearings&docid=f:81697.wais

[67] �In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue: U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool,� The Washington Post, Sunday, September 15, 2002; Page A01.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html

[68] Will Dunham, �Saddam defiant as Bush presses for Iraq to disarm,� Reuters, Oct. 9, 2002. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-128893.html. See also n. 71 below.

[69] For this effect of an invasion, see the statement against the invasion by major relief organizations, Save the Children UK, CARE International UK, Christian Aid, CAFOD, Tearfund, Help Age International, Islamic Relief and 4Rs. www.cafod.org.uk/IRAQ/iraqunitedstatement20020923.shtml

[70] These include: if Iraq attacks any of its neighbors; if Israel is attacked; if U.S. forces are attacked with chemical or biological weapons; if the United States military encounters targets impervious to conventional weapons; and in the event of �surprising military developments.� See excerpts from the text at www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

[71] Tom Newton Dunn, �Top General: We Will Suffer 37,000 Casualties,� The Mirror, September 24, 2002. www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12221807&method=full&siteid=50143. A disturbing poll by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies shows a �decreasing casualty aversion� among the American public, and reports that the American public would be willing to accept some 30.000 deaths of its soldiers �to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction.� www.duke.edu/web/tiss/

[72] Of nearly 700,000 troops, the US suffered 147 KIA and 457 WIA in the 1991 attacks on Iraq � many by �friendly fire.�  For the present state of Iraqi resistance, see the �surprisingly candid� interview, an Iraqi officer revealed to foreign journalists:  �The tanks and armored vehicles were relics from the 1980-88 war with Iran and desperately needed spare parts, and the men lacked morale and equipment, including boots in some cases.� Philip Sherwell, London Daily Telegraph, �Iraq begins war efforts,� Washington Times, September 23, 2002.  www.washtimes.com/world/20020923-92553310.htm. Note also the observation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, �Note also Donald Rumsfeld, �Looking at what was overwhelming force a decade or two decades ago, today you can have overwhelming force, conceivably, with lesser numbers because the lethality is equal to or greater than before.� Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, �Rumsfeld Orders War Plans Redone for Faster Action,� The New York Times, October 13, 2002. www.nytimes.com/2002/10/13/international/middleeast/13MILI.html

[73] See David Hackworth, �The Hidden Casualties of Gulf War I,� Defense Watch, September 18, 2002. www.sftt.org/dw09182002.html#1, and Saul Bloom, John M. Miller, Philippa Winkler, eds., Hidden Casualties: Environmental, Health, and Political Consequences of the Persian Gulf War (North Atlantic Books, 1994).

[74] �Mandela: US Threat to World Peace,� NewsMax Wires, September 11, 2002.  www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/11/72407.shtml

[75] Alan Travis and Michael White, �War on Iraq: the mood shifts: New ICM poll shows opposition to conflict diminishing rapidly,� September 17, 2002

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,793571,00.html

[76] Oonagh Blackman, �Iraq War Is Illegal: Own lawyers will warn off Blair on Iraq,� The Mirror, August 20, 2002.  www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12130244&method=full&siteid=50143

[77] Nigel Morris, �Blair to plead for cabinet unity as Short breaks ranks on Iraq strikes,� The Independent, September 23, 2002.  http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=335792

[78] www.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/cover.htm

[79] �In the Mori poll for ITV news, 70 per cent of those questioned opposed Britain joining any military action against Iraq without United Nations approval,� George Jones, Andrew Sparrow and Rachel Sylvester, �Iraq dossier �has failed to convince the public,�� The Telegraph, September 26, 2002. http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/26/nirq26.xml

[80] UNSC 1435 demanding an end to the siege of Ramallah. The US alone abstained.  For other UNSC Resolutions on Iraq and US vetoes of enforcement, see www.endtheoccupation.org/resources/open_letter_9_28/open_letter.html;  http://jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/77001.php.

[81] Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major U.S. ally in the Middle East, said in Cairo that �if you strike at the Iraqi people because of one or two individuals and leave the Palestinian issue (unsolved), not a single (Arab) ruler will be able to curb the (rising) popular sentiments.� Robert Burns, �Rumsfeld: Allied Support Not Vital,� AP, Aug 28, 2002. www.themercury.com/stories/article.6270.shtml

[82] �Daniel Brumberg, a Georgetown University government professor � told the House of Representatives subcommittee on national security, veterans affairs and international relations that a U.S.-led attack on Iraq would �trigger violent protests throughout the Arab world� forcing Arab governments to become more autocratic and to choke off what few democratic institutions they have.� Alan Elsner, �Congress Told Iraq Attack Will Trigger Arab Rage,� Reuters, October 8, 2002. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021008/pl_nm/iraq_usa_arabs_dc_1

[83] �U.S. senators: Iraq strike could lead to 'Arab-Israeli' war,� Reuters September 22, 2002.  www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=211360&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0

[84] Hassan Hafidh, �Iraq says inspection offer robs U.S. of reason to wage war,� Reuters, September 17, 2002

 http://sg.news.yahoo.com/reuters/asia-125654.html

[85] Arabic News, �AL Stresses Opposition to Iraq Sanctions,� Sept. 9, 1999.  www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990903/1999090309.html

[86] NewsMax.com Wires, �Arab Summit Embraces Iraq, Snaps at U.S.,� March 29, 2002. www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/28/152525.shtml

[87] For the underreported personal and governmental attacks on Arab citizens, see www.adc.org and for example, Sarwat Viquar, :Living In Fear; Detention And Deportation,� ZNet Commentary,  September 17, 2002 www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-09/10viquar.cfm

[88] �Arab Trade With U.S. Drops By 26 Percent,� MENL, September 9, 2002. http://menewsline.com/stories/2002/september/09_16_2.html

[89] For a fuller discussion, see Miriam Pemberton September 13, 2002 Testimony before Congress, �The Economic Costs of a War with Iraq,� reprinted in Foreign Policy in Focus, September, 2002.  www.fpif.org/cgaa/talkingpoints/0209iraqwarcost_body.html

[90] BBC News, �US Ready To �Go It Alone,�� February 2, 2002, news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1798132.stm; Naveed Raja, �Rumsfeld: US will Go It Alone on Iraq,� The Mirror, August 28, 2002, www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12152048&method=full&siteid=50143

[91] Howard LaFranchi, �Iraq war to carry a high tab: It may run as high as $100 billion, although some analysts see an economic upside,� Christian Science Monitor, August 19, 2002. www.csmonitor.com/2002/0819/p01s01-usec.html

[92] �Oiling the Wheels of War: Iraq Campaign May Spark Global Recession,� Editorial in The Guardian September 16, 2002.  http://commondreams.org/views02/0916-01.htm

[93] See, for example, William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World�s Only Superpower (Common Courage Press, 2000).

[94] Dr Glen Rangwala, �Unveiled: the thugs Bush wants in place of Saddam,� The Sunday Herald, September 22, 2002.  www.sundayherald.com/27877  There are excellent � and horrifying � thumbnail sketches of the possible successors, described collectively as �Convicted embezzlers, accused war criminals and CIA stooges to a man.�

[95] Akiva Eldar, �They�re Jumping in Head First,� Ha�Aretz, September 30, 2002.  www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=214159

[96] James Rubin, �Planning Now for a Postwar Iraq?� New York Times, August 23, 2002. www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/opinion/23RUBI.html

[97] For an excellent analysis of  this Act, see David Cole, �Trading Liberty for Security after September 11,� Foreign Policy in Focus Report, September, 2002.  www.fpif.org/papers/post9-11.html

[98] Peace Statement on 'Morality and Legality' of Iraq War.  A copy can be read at: www.trinitywallstreet.org/u/d/News/alert_186.html  See also, the ringing condemnation of the invasion by Leonard I. Beerman, James Lawson, Maher Hathout and George F. Regas, �Men of God, Warriors for Peace, Enemies of War,� Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2002.  www.commondreams.org/views02/0916-03.htm.

[99] �Iraq Says UN Weapons Inspectors Can Return Next Week,� Rense, Oct. 12, 2002.  www.rense.com/general30/un.htm

[100] John L. Allen Jr., �Criticism of war on terror dominates interfaith meeting ,� National Catholic Reporter, September 13, 2002, http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/091302/091302d.htm

[101] ibid. In an official statement, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote to President Bush on September 13, 2002.  He called the  preemptive, unilateral use of force �difficult to justify.� www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/bush902.htm Compare this to the statements cited in  note 69.

[102] Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, �American Arsenal in the Mideast Is Being Built Up to Confront Saddam Hussein,� New York Times, August 19, 2002. www.nytimes.com/2002/08/19/international/middleeast/19MILI.html.  See also, Kedar Sharma, �U.S. Looks to Qatar for Iraq Strike Staging Ground,� Reuters, October 9, 2002. http://reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=politicsnews&StoryID=1555024

[103] See Marc Ericson, �Iraq: In All but Name, the War�s On,� Asia Times, August 17, 2002.  www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DH17Ak03.html

[104] �New Blood: Can a moment of anti-war anger become an effective new political movement?� In These Times, October 13, 2002.  www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/25/feature1.shtml.This is an excellent and insightful article.

[105] Harris Poll, October 9, 2002. www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp; See also, �Public Support for Iraq Attack Steady � Poll,� Reuters, October 12, 2002. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20021012_214.html