[i]Why Desert Storm II is Wrong[/i]

Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.)

'Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out.'-President G.W. Bush (Elliot & Carney, 1). This is the sum of President George W. Bush's policy on the war with Iraq. President Bush interrupted a meeting between Condoleezza Rice, a National Security Advisor, and three U.S. Senators to spell out his ideals on war with Iraq. The president warded off any talk of plans to avoid an attack on Iraq with a wave of his hand; leaving Rice's office.
Was the attack on Iraq pre-emptive? Is the war a justified one? These questions still remain to be answered. With the absence of any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration is inclined to revert to the 'Mobile Weapons Winnebago' theory. This theory is one that tells of mobile chemical weapons laboratories that were most likely 'driven' out of Iraq when the United States threatened war. This theory lacks merit for many reasons, one of which is that if Saddam Hussein was planning to attack America with chemical weapons, then why would he order his source to leave? Our country has waged a war with Iraq on the basis of the potential use of W.M.D. without any convincing evidence that the threat ever existed.
What is the United States military doing to find these supposed weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear weapons, as they are commonly called? In a recent interview with the Associated Press W.M.D. were a very important concern. In response to the questions about finding the evidence, 'Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told reporters that he's more concerned about getting the Iraqi government up and running' ('Wolfowitz Interview', par. 2). The focus is being shifted from the W.M.D. to something else, anything else. This point is further illustrated in the recent 'pulling of the 9/11 card', where the Bush administration continually tries to tie the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, to Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein is believed to be many things that are not usually disputed. He is a murderer, a cruel leader, and probably a little insane. These allegations are generally accepted as truths, however no evidence seems to exist that Saddam was involved in the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks. In fact no evidence has ever been presented, that has not later been disproved, connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama Bin Ladden.
One common notion is that Iraq, under Hussein's leadership, was growing stronger during the 'Clinton Years', and had to be stopped before attacks began. This is largely untrue, and very presumptuous. In fact, according to the editors of 'The Nation' magazine '...since the Gulf War, Iraq's military capabilities have weakened significantly, to the point where they pose little or no threat to its neighbors, a fact reflected in Saddam Hussein's bid to improve relations with both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia' ('War on Iraq is Wrong' par. 2). The United Nations sanctions and financial controls have contributed to the lack of resources that Iraq would need in order to rebuild its nuclear weapons program. The weapons that Hussein's regime possessed were destroyed by U.N. inspections teams in 1998, along with the capabilities to use the weapons. If the weapons to use nuclear warheads were rebuilt, they would be useless without the ability to launch them (SCUD missiles).
To examine the reasons surrounded by the decision to go to war, you have to start at the founding policies of the United States. American foreign policy has several angles in its approach to foreign politics. One of these philosophies is Crusading Moralism, the 'sensitivity to humanitarian needs'. In this philosophy, America has a special mission, this mission transcends day-to-day diplomacy. Crusading Moralism is definitely present in this war, mainly in the idea that America is 'liberating' the people of Iraq. This idea has a major presence in the operation to remove Saddam Hussein.
The next philosophy that has shaped American foreign policy is the ideology of William H. Seward. Seward was Secretary of State during the 1860's, yet his vision of Manifest Destiny is still prevalent in today's agenda. Manifest Destiny is the idea that the territories that the United States controlled were destined to stretch from east to west. Proponents of this believe territorial expansion is preordained for the U.S.; this is why Alaska was purchased, and was the reason for the occupation in the Philippines.
Seward's Vision, as it is referred to, stated that the U.S. was a superior nation that needed to guide other countries into a superior form of government; democracy. This mission was closely tied with the theory of 'White Man's Burden', which states that white/Europeans had to bring civilization to the world of color.
America has always held interest in military bases around the world. In addition to obvious strategic reasons, we have sought to watch over countries that we hold military bases in. Currently, there is no military base in Iraq, but you would have to assume that as soon as the new government is put in place we will include an American military base in Iraq as well.
The U.S. has always acted with their best interests in mind. When they needed a shortcut for ships traveling to and from America, they helped the Panamanian people revolt against Colombia. The revolution allowed the U.S. a section of land now called the Panama Canal. This was a clear example of what America would do in order to boost its own economic gain. This is again tied to the Iraq war, where a great untapped resource of crude oil remains untouched. This is the cause for America being referred to as an imperialistic nation. Imperialism employs economic, political, and moral agendas. In this case the economic reason is definitely the supply of oil; the political reason is the mission to turn Middle Eastern countries into democracies, and the moral reason is to stop one of the 'Axis of Evil' from harming more Iraqi's.
Further proof is the fact that the Bush administration is tied so closely with Texas oil. George H.W. Bush worked for Texas oil companies nearly his entire private career before becoming elected to public offices. Following in the footsteps of his father, George W. Bush started his career in a Texas oil company. After graduating from Yale, G.W. Bush started a company called Arbusto Energy, an oil-exploration company. He ran for Republican Congressional candidate in Texas with the financial support of large Texas oil companies.
Vice President Dick Cheney stepped down as CEO of Halliburton Company a major oil business, to campaign alongside his old boss's son George W. Bush. What remains a mystery is why the U.S. military would name the war on Iraq O.I.L., or 'Operation Iraqi Liberation.' This fact strongly contradicts the reasons given behind a war in Iraq. Oil has never been given as a reason for the attack. The fact remains, some people of the United States are not exactly clear why we went to war in the first place; a statement that bothers a lot of people. If a country that goes to war doesn't know the reasons why, then how can that country be called a democracy?
September 11th is a very delicate issue, one that is being blatantly abused by the President and his administration. Vice President Cheney was against the war initially; in a interview with Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Elliot and James Elliot report that 'Dick Cheney, is someone whose view of the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein was transformed by Sept, 11th' (Elliot & Carney, 12). In the aftermath of 9/11, Cheney began a self-education seminar on the Middle East. He wanted to know '...how might a postwar Iraq take shape and what are the prospects for democracy in the region' (Elliot & Carney, 12). The most important question is then, where is the evidence that changed the mind of Cheney? This mystery remains just that, a mystery. The terrorist attacks were unsuccessfully linked to the regime of Saddam Hussein, and when doubtful of that evidence, the Bush administration chose to turn the tides. They claimed that the U.S. had evidence of the possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Another argument that develops in the case for pre-emptive strike is the Nazi analogy. It suggests that Iraq, if left with the supposed W.M.D.'s would soon involve the countries surrounding it. This is a severe fallacy because, as James Fallows argues 'Iraq, unlike Germany, has no industrial base and few military allies nearby. It is split by regional, religious, and ethnic differences that are much more complicated than Nazi Germany's simple mobilization of 'Aryans' against Jews' (Fallows, 2). Furthermore, Iraq has been stifled with U.N. sanctions, while Germany was ever growing at that time.
Saddam Hussein is a 'bad man', no doubt, but not a stupid man. When talk of chemical weapons was rumored in the Gulf War in the 1990's, the U.S. said it would respond with everything in its power had Hussein used them. Iraq didn't use chemical or biological weapons on U.S. troops then when he was at the pinnacle of his power, what would make anyone assume that in the declining state that Iraq appears to be in, that they would launch an attack on American soil?
With the declining resources of Iraq in mind, where would the funding come from that is needed for the rebuild of Iraq? According to James Fallows, that cost would be somewhere around '...$16 billion for post-conflict security forces and $1 billion for reconstruction...' (Fallows, 9). This year's Federal deficit is in excess of $400 billion dollars, and the '$6,737,558,040,996.19 national debt as of July 30, 2003,' (according to the 'Debt Clock') is growing by $1.6 billion dollars a day. Where does the money come from that pays for a pre-emptive strike on a foreign country that will presumably cost us in excess of $65 billion dollars to occupy? The taxpayers will, and of course American investors eager to get their hands on the Iraq market. This wouldn't be so outrages if, for one thing, there had been a vote on the war with Iraq, and most importantly if there had been any undisputed facts about the involvement of Saddam Hussein in the attacks on September 11th.
So what is this evidence that was used to drag the nation into war? A speech made by President Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address pleaded the case to go to war by saying '...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa' (Scheer, 1). This information was investigated a year prior to the speech the President gave, and was deemed false by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson. After hearing the speech made by Bush, Wilson came forward to inform the public. He alleged that 'That information was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British white paper and the President's State of the Union address' (Scheer, 2).
Even in the case that factual evidence of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction did exist, it is not was not a justified assault. Because there is no proof that threats were made or attacks were eminent, it should have been up to the United Nations Security Council to decide whether they should take action against Iraq. The United Nations Charter was formed for exactly this reason.
Richard Falk, wrote an article entitled 'The New Bush Doctrine' in which he states the international law of the UN which '...prohibits any use of international force that is not undertaken in self-defense...or pursuant to a decision by the UN Security Council' (Falk, 1).
In taking a unilateral approach to the engagement of war with Iraq, the U.S. has named itself the guarantor of international order; with no existing Americanized international law. The only thing left is the American Puritanical way. To force a belief on someone or on other nations, is, if anything, fundamentalism. America claims that it is morally superior, and that our nation should be the keeper of the law no matter what the culture. This is moral absolutism at its finest.
Is this war wrong? The only answer to that question is yes, until such time when evidentiary facts are presented to disqualify that answer. Was the strike on Iraq pre-emptive? Of course it is, it can't be retaliatory when there were no crimes or evidence of threats against the United States. In fact the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons remains the one and only: United States of America. We remember so little about our own history.

THAT WAS LONG!!!!!
But ISee what you mean and Cheers!

I'm sorry - I didn't read it all. But I'll get back to it. Desert Storm II should not have happened. We were lucky - it could have been worse. And yet - it's not over. If we're smart - We will take measures now to prevent our country from being stupid again, as we may not be so lucky next time.

I concur okcity!
Eldred

OIF shouldn't have happened. But on the other hand, it was incredibly succesful.
Lets hope that a solid democracy develops there, though I think the odds are against it.

We will make it happen. We have no other choice!
Eldred

Yeah we will make it happen, if we don't go bankrupt in the mean time. Check out the national debt clock, see how close we are to nothing at all.

Ok - I've read your whole article - it was very informative. I think it is a good idea to let people know that we did not have to go to war. You might want to copy and paste all that work and put it in a web page one day - I would be sure to to link my page to it.

There was a wired article about how the right and left communicate and share information. Accordingly, the right wing doesn't use the freely open internet. When we were all posting our posts and creating our web pages and sending email, we thought we were the majority and the majority didn't want war, and I for one did not believe it was going to happen. That could be why we did not take as much action as we should have before the war started. Still however, I believe the internet is the future and the dot.com thing didn't put a dent in that dream. We need to continue and maybe even (especially me), brush up some on our diplomacy. But the internet is ours to educate and in inform others and share opinions and though the right wing might not use it today, they will tomorrow. We need to take advantage of that and not let go of it.

There is one thing I would add to the information you provided. Bob Dylan explains it very well in one of his angry songs about Vietnam. I'll just throw a figure out. Iraq cost us 20 billion, give or take a couple billion. So we ask Congress for that money. Did anybody explain where that money goes? Did we hire any new soldiers. The National Guards (ok, a couple million to pay these guys and gales while they're on active duty). Did we build any weapons?, Ships?, Planes? Did we have to manufacture ammunition? Fuel maybe (did those planes always stand still? Our those ships always docked?). That war only cost us millions, not billions. Ammunitions have a shelf life. We have to use them or lose them. They will reach a point where you can no longer safely fire them. You want a strong military - you go to congress and say look, I need billions of dollars to replace arsenal that is about to expire. Fat chance of that. So you have a war. All those billions of dollars it supposedly cost us to have this war will go right into the pockets of the defense contractors. Its not wasted money - it goes into the U.S. economy. Our economy will improve, just like it did after Desert Storm, and all the other times. But we need to get out of this business. So the next time someone comes along and says, "Liberty and Justice for All, Fire Up Those Missiles," You know what is really going down. It ain't right, we need to put a stop to it. One, day, we're not going to be so lucky. I don't want to be here when someone says Oops.

Ack! I'm halfway thru. Interesting read so far, but I'll have to finish a little later.

Thanks for reading it, I realize it is long, but there is so much to say about this subject! Lol.

I might just take your advice OK, and put it on a webpage. I have a useless one so I might as well change that.

Interesting information on the cost part, I never thought about it in that way! That's a good angle. Thanks.

Whew!! Finally got through it. Definitely a good read. Funny that this whole thing happened just as the US was experiencing an energy (oil) crisis and when the economy was (and still is) down in the dumps. Take away the distraction of this whole war business, and you're left with a pretty shitty president, plain and simple.

Thanks Aura, I completely agree with that. This was my final paper for my college composition class, so I never saw what the instructor thought. Its nice to hear these comments.

You wrote that? Hey, BIG UP man!!

Gracias, Danke, Thank You...