"Despite the very dangerous troop build-up in the region, we still
have the capacity to stop this war."
Talking Points on the U.S.-Iraq Crisis
by Phyllis Bennis
UNDERSTANDING THE U.S.-IRAQ CRISIS: A Primer By Phyllis Bennis
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer.htm
A pamphlet of the Institute for Policy Studies, January 2003
Summary
The current crisis between the U.S. and Iraq continues more
than a decade of antagonism between Washington and Baghdad,
involving three U.S. administrations. To truly understand why we
stand now at the brink of war, however, one must look closely at
the goals of the current Bush administration, which is drawn to
conflict by Iraq's massive oil reserves and the goal of expanding
U.S. military power around the world.
The Iraqi government's record is undeniably brutal, and the U.S.
and its allies should never have facilitated its access to weapons
of mass destruction, as they did during the decade of the close
U.S.-Iraqi alliance in the 1980s. However, there is no evidence
that Iraq currently has viable weapons of mass destruction, or that
it presents an imminent threat to the United States.
Nor, despite Bush administration claims, is there any link between
Iraq and the events of September 11. A U.S. war against Iraq would
violate international law and worsen our global reputation as an
arrogant, unaccountable superpower. The effects would be
particularly dire in the Middle East, where many governments hang
in the balance between increasingly outraged populations and the
demands of Washington, on whom they rely for economic and military
support. A war would cause great suffering within Iraq, already
devastated by the 1991 war and years of crippling economic
sanctions, and would put many others at risk, including tens of
thousands of American troops.
A forward-looking United States would work through the United
Nations to promote disarmament, human rights, and democracy at home
and throughout the region, and pursue domestic energy policies that
reduce our dependence on oil and thus our interventions in the
Persian Gulf region and elsewhere.
[Would you like the bound, printed version of this pamphlet? $2 for
one copy, $1.50 each for 2-5, $1 each for 6-49, $.75 each for
50-249, and $.50 each for 250 or more. Contact Dorian Lipscombe at
202-234-9382 or dorian@ips-dc.org ]
Talking Points on the U.S.
-Iraq Crisis by Phyllis Bennis (author of
Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis: A Primer)
20 January 2003
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/talkingpoints.htm
- War is not inevitable. Despite the very dangerous troop build-up
in the region, we still have the capacity to stop this war.
- The inspectors still have found no evidence of any weapons of
mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. Even with access to some of
Washington's intelligence, supposedly proving the presence of WMD
programs, inspectors have not found any evidence of a viable WMD
program. (The dozen or so empty shell casings found may represent a
technical violation, but they do are NOT evidence of any viable
chemical weapons program.) The U.S. still refuses to simply turn
over ALL the intelligence information it claims it has to the UN.
- The discovery of a dozen, and then 4 more, empty warhead shells
is one more piece of evidence that inspections are working.
According to the spokesman for Hans Blix, the inspectors had known
about the existence and location of the weapons storage depot where
they were found "for years," and it was only a matter of when they
got there to inspect it. If the Iraqis were trying to hide those
weapons, he asked, "why would they be so silly" as to put them in a
place well-known to the UN team?
- Iraq is still cooperating with the UN inspectors. On January 17
and 20, the Iraqis agreed to provide additional information as
requested by the inspectors, and to encourage private interviews
with scientists.
- Domestic opposition is on the rise. The weekend demonstrations
were the largest in Washington and San Francisco since Viet Nam,
and were matched by more all across the country. Black community
opposition, already high, rose in anger towards Bush's Martin
Luther King birthday announcement of new opposition to affirmative
action. Church opposition is rising, with church leaders not only
preaching against the war but leading marches against the White
House. Republicans are abandoning Bush's war, as per the full-page
Wall Street Journal ad from major Republican donors stating they
supported the Gulf War, they supported the war in Afghanistan, but
they don't support this war: "We feel betrayed. We want our money
back. We want our country back."
- Already low international support for a U.S. war is dropping even
further. There is a major divide between the international
objective of disarming Iraq of WMDs, and the U.S. objective of
forcible overthrow of the Iraqi government. France, the current
Security Council president, issued a major challenge to the U.S.
war drive by convening a meeting of foreign ministers on 20 January
to discuss the "war on terrorism" and using it as a forum for
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin to announce that
"today nothing justifies envisaging military action." Germany's
foreign minister said war in Iraq would spawn more terrorist acts
and have "disastrous consequences for long-term regional
stability." Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov said "we must be
careful not to take unilateral steps that might threaten the unity
of the entire [anti-] terrorism coalition. In this context we are
strictly in favor of a political settlement of the situation
revolving around Iraq." At the Council meeting Powell was forced to
abandon his prepared text to plead instead with Council members
that they "must not shrink." from their obligations, which he
implied included war.
- France and Russia (as well as China, which also opposed war at
the meeting) both hold veto power; Germany does not, but will hold
the influential Council presidency in February. It is possible that
aside from the veto threat the U.S. will be unable to get the
necessary 9 positive Council votes supporting a war. There could be
as many as seven abstentions (possibly including France, Russia,
China, Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan, Cameroon, Guinea).
- Their isolation has pushed the Bush administration onto the
defensive. They are now discussing war by a "coalition of the
willing," indicating some recognition that they have no real
international support, and that a UN endorsement may be out of
reach. A U.S.-led alliance would NOT be a coalition of the willing;
it would be a coalition of the coerced and the criminal, as it
would violate the UN Charter's very narrow conditions for a legal
war.
- The new high-profile consideration of exile and amnesty for
Saddam Hussein indicates an interest among at least some Bush
officials in finding a face-saving way of declaring victory without
war. Background: exile in any of the Arab countries is doubtful.
The Iraqi leadership is unlikely to believe any Arab regime could
guarantee their safety, and no Arab regime (all of whom already
face serious crises of legitimacy and stability) is likely to risk
a resurgent Saddam Hussein trying to launch a come-back from its
territory. The parallel Russian initiative also now underway may
have a better chance of success. (A Russian deputy foreign minister
is now on the ground in Baghdad.) Exile in Russia might be more
acceptable to Saddam Hussein regarding security because it would
involve a more direct U.S. involvement, but would be less desirable
because of distance and lack of contact with the Arab world.
Considerations: Exile would presumably include guarantees of
immunity from war crimes prosecution. This would fly in the face of
the demands of Iraqi exiles and likely many Iraqis inside the
country, as well as challenging the last several years' advances
towards universal jurisdiction and accountability for war crimes.
One consideration might be that the international war crimes
justice system is still only partial. One result is that leaders of
powerful countries which back cruel dictators consistently remain
immune from such international accountability. Therefore one could
argue that until U.S. officials who either backed Saddam Hussein's
government during Baghdad's worst human rights violations or
committed their own massive human rights violations (bombings and
murderous economic sanctions) against the Iraqi people, are placed
in the dock with Saddam Hussein, it is an acceptable compromise to
allow the Iraqi dictator amnesty.
- The High Commissioner for Human Rights, or other appropriate UN
agencies, should be urged to consider investigating and issuing
pre-emptive warnings about potential violations of the Geneva
Conventions, other human rights instruments, or the UN Charter
itself, that may be committed in the course of a preventive war in
Iraq. The model could be that of Israel's Gush Shalom [Peace Bloc]
which routinely distributes warnings to soldiers being deployed in
the occupied territories advising them that carrying out illegal
orders they may receive could make them liable to war crimes
charges either in Israel or in the International Criminal Court.
- UN humanitarian agencies recently said that 500,000 Iraqis would
be injured in the early stage of a U.S. war, that up to 9.5 million
Iraqis would immediately become dependent on aid agencies for basic
food. UN planning anticipates providing emergency food only to
about half of those in need - up to 4.5 million people; of those in
need of food, the UN estimates that about 3 million will face "dire
malnutrition." Less than half the population would retain access to
clean water. The UN describes a U.S. war in Iraq resulting in a
crippled nation with shattered infrastructure, an electricity grid
badly damaged, and facing major damage to the oil industry, with
overall civilian damage anticipated at levels far beyond that of
the 1991 Gulf War.
- Even if evidence of a WMD program is found, there is no basis for
war. We cannot accept the legitimacy of killing potentially
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to prevent a speculative future
threat. We reject going to war on spec.
U. S. Military Spending And the Cost of Invading Iraq
Bush administration's defense spending next year will be $394
billion. The United States already has the most powerful military
on earth and now spends as much on defense as the next 15 big
defense-spending nations combined. Russia, China and "Rogue" states
spend $60, $42, and $15 billion for military, respectively. The
U.S. military spending is about eight-times that of education or
health care spending and twenty-times that of training, employment
and social services spending.
In the same budget, with such huge military spending that is
already $100 billion higher than Bill Clinton's final year, one
will notice the following program cuts that relate to poverty and
hunger in America:
- 36,000 seniors will be cut-off of meal programs
- 532,000 families will be cut-off of heating assistance
- 8,000 homeless kids will be cut-off of education programs
- 50,000 kids will be cut-off of after school programs
- 33,000 kids will be cut-off of child care
The most important sections of the mainstream media in the USA
continue to carry out psychological warfare against the citizens of
the USA in order to mobilize them to support the military invasion
of Iraq at a time when millions want jobs, heat, affordable housing
and medicine, healthcare, and decent education. According to
military and economic experts, the invasion of Iraq will likely
cost as much as $200 billion, which has to be paid by the American
people. $200 billion is:
- Six-times what federal government spends on K-12 education
- Enough to provide health care to all uninsured children in the
U.S. for ten years
- More than eight-times the total international affairs budget
Perhaps the biggest cost of invading Iraq will be the tens- if not
hundreds-of-thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who will lose
their lives to massive bombardments and military invasion and
occupation of their cities and homes. In addition, rebuilding of
Iraq is likely to cost another $50 billion and would require
significant material and personnel resources. Just the security
forces alone would entail 75,000 personnel in the first year
amounting to about $16.5 billion. At least 5,000-10,000 troops
would have to remain in place for five-ten years, costing $1- $2
billion a year. Beyond security, the U.S. would be expected to make
a significant contribution for humanitarian and emergency aid, a
transitional administration, civil service and other components of
reconstruction. These non-security costs would amount to $15 - $25
billion over the next decade.
At a time of economic recession and when 35 states face severe
economic difficulties and budget short falls, the $200 billion cost
of invading Iraq must be carried by all of the States of the Union.
In addition, the administrations new tax plan will cost states, on
average, another $4.5 billion in revenues. This will push the
states further into recession, resulting in loss of jobs, and
deeper cuts in social, health and educational programs, since
states are now mandated by the federal law to balance their budget.
Lafayette [Indiana] Area Peace Coalition 1/16/03