The Logic of the War

2003-8-24 02:35:00

My Friends,

One of the reasons we discourage controversial political posts is that they can sidetrack us for a long time if we discuss them.

A point in discussion is the one posted by Keith called "Why Did We Go to war, Daddy?"

I find it interesting that the kid in the post sounds more like Michael Moore than some innocent questioning child.

This, IMHO, contains so much illusion and attack in it that I feel strongly that it should not pass unchallenged. I therefore, have taken the time to make a response. I could write much more, but this will have to do for now.

The Logic of the War By J J Dewey

Dialog between a College Professor (CP) from a prestigious university and a plain speaking man with common sense (CS).

CP (Notices CS has an American flag on his jacket and just doesn't like the general look of him. He says): "I suppose you are one of those?
CS Excuse me. Those what?
CP Those who believe you're more patriotic than the rest of us just because you wrap yourself in the flag.
CS It's not me that's doing the comparison here, but you, my friend. Why do you think such thoughts?
CP You feel you have to put your patriotism on display by wearing that flag.
CS Now you think you know all about what I feel. Feeling a little judgmental are we? I notice you are wearing a name tag that has a PhD after your name. Is someone here feeling so intellectually inept that he has to make a public display of academic achievement?
CP Of course not. This is for identification purposes only.
CS And you're also proud of the fact that you have a PhD?
CP I suppose.
CS Well this flag I am wearing identifies the fact that I am an American and I'm proud of it. But there is one difference between you and me wearing these statements of identification.
CP And what is that?
CS You're wearing a statement that tells the world that you're better than the rest of us. I'm wearing one that says I am in the same boat with everyone in the country and I want to keep the boat afloat so all can benefit.

CHECKMATE

CP I suppose you are one of those who supported the war in Iraq.
CS Yep. I'm one of those seventy percent of Americans who did. Is that a problem with you?
CP Well, it's just that you must feel very stupid now. We went there because Saddam Hussein was supposed to have weapons of mass destruction and they have found none. Now we know the war was not justified and is illegal.
CS So did you support our war against Slobodan Milosevic in Bosnia?
CP Yes.
CS And was our national security in immediate danger from Milosevic?
CP No. That's not the reason we went to war.
CS Did we have any UN resolution making that war legal?
CP The UN was not involved.
CS Then why did we go to war?
CP Slobodan Milosevic was like Hitler and committed genocide. We had to go for humanitarian reasons to prevent more slaughter and crimes against humanity.
CS And to justify the war Clinton and NATO claimed that over 225,000 Albanians were slaughtered by Milosevic. It has now been about less than four months since the second Gulf War ended. How many slaughtered Albanians do you suppose they found four months after the war in Bosnia?
CP Can't say that I have that figure at my fingertips.
CS I do. It was less than 2000, fewer than one percent of the claimed amount. And four months after the war did they have any proof that Slobodan Milosevic was responsible for these deaths?
CP I do not recall.
CS Then I'll recall for you. There was no proof whatsoever. Only conjecture. Did they have any proof three years after the war?
CP You tell me.
CS Again, even three years after the war, there was no proof whatsoever. Do you remember any protests from celebrities, peace people, democrats, the French and other nations about lack of proof or not finding the 225,000 bodies?
CP If what you say is true, there probably were complaints.
CS From whom??? Give me an example of anything reported in the major media.
CP I'm sure I could if I did some research.
CS Well I've researched it and can't find any and you've never heard of any but just assume it is there. Would you like to bet $1000 dollars that you can't find anything about Clinton and the bodies of Bosnia that remotely compares to the news reporting against Bush not finding the Weapons of mass destruction?
CP I'm not as rich as you but I'll bet $5.
CS $5 worth of confidence from you sounds about right. Now, three and a half years after the US led NATO war in Bosnia, they have found 16,500 bodies they believe are attributed to atrocities and some evidence linking the deaths to Slobodan Milosevic. But this is a far cry from the 225,000 number that Clinton used to justify the attack. Do you think that Clinton and NATO leaders should be investigated for hyping the numbers?
CP No. If you have evidence of genocide like this then one must put a stop to it.
CS But Saddam Hussein committed genocide against the Kurds by gassing them in the late 80's and then made another attempt to destroy them after the first Gulf War. The U.S. and Britain had to set up the No Fly Zone to save them from extinction. In addition, we have proof that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed many more of his own people than Slobodan Milosevic ever dreamed of. Why would you not give Bush as much slack in this war as you gave Clinton with Milosevic?
CP But Bush went to war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction which do not exist. Clinton went to war for humanitarian purposes which were definitely a problem.
CS Do the humanitarian benefits from the war in Iraq mean nothing to you? There is no more genocide, torture, or running prisoners through shredders for entertainment.
CP It's good that Saddam Hussein is gone. If Bush had said this was the reason for the war then perhaps I could have supported it, but he said it was based on Weapons of Mass Destruction.
CS You're acting like he said this was the only reason he went to war. Do you realize this is not true?
CP I heard him say it.
CS Did you hear him say this was the only reason?
CP I think so.
CS And where did he say this was the only reason?
CP I'm sure I can find it if you allow me to do some research.
CS Want to bet another $1000 on it?
CP Like I say, I'm just on a professor's salary.
CS Which is a lot more than I make. Obviously you know you can't find it but won't admit it. Now, his administration did give other reasons. Do you remember any of them?
CP All I remembers is the danger of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
CS Maybe that's all you wanted to hear. Did you not hear Bush and many members of his administration reminding us many times before the war of the atrocities that existed in Iraq?
CP No.
CS Perhaps you were writing your memoirs at the time. I heard this mentioned many times. Did you not hear the administration talk of enforcing the U.N. resolutions?
CP The administration went against the U.N.
CS You are not very informed for a professor. What resolution did the U.N. make that they went against?
CP I don't have all these figures on the tip of my tongue. I'd have to research it.
CS You want to bet another $1000, I mean $5 that you can't find it? (No answer)
They not only didn't go against the U.N. but the U.S. and Britain were the only nations with guts enough to enforce the very resolutions the U.N. approved on the matter.
CP And what was that?
CS The first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi type aggression and made war against him and drove him out of Kuwait. After this, the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.
If Saddam did not live up to his agreement then the cease fire could end and the war could resume at any time. No time limit was placed on this.
There were two main violations Saddam Hussein made in relation to resolution 687. Can you name them?
CP You tell me.
CS It is an established fact that he violated the human rights section. He killed, maimed and imprisoned many thousands whom he suspected as treason. Some he ground up like meat for laughs, others he dumped in liquid acid, others he tortured with electrical jolts to their privates... He makes Slobodan Milosevic look like Mother Teresa. Because of resolution 687 which was still in force during the Bush Administration, the resuming of war against Saddam Hussein was legal. Can you give me any reason why this would not be true?
CP That resolution was passed years ago.
CS It doesn't matter. It was still in force. The second violation Saddam Hussein made was to not cooperate in giving full details about his weapons programs. He never cooperated as specified in this and this gave us the legal right to resume war at any moment of our choice yet still be in harmony with the U.N. Then in November, 2002, Bush sponsored a Resolution 1441 reaffirming this and it was unanimously passed by the Security Council. This gave Bush two legal reasons for the war and no legal reason against it. Can you think of any resolution that would have prohibited such action?
CP I'm sure I could find something if I read all the resolutions and U.N. guidelines.
CS But there's nothing on the top of your head, right?
CP You can't deny that most members of the U.N. were against the war.
CS Yet in November, 2002, just a couple months before the war, all voting nations on the council, including France and Germany, gave Bush authority to wage war if Saddam Hussein did not fully reveal his weapons programs. If they changed their minds then why did they not pass a new resolution?
CP I do not know. They should have. It appears though that Saddam could not cooperate because he had none of the suspected weapons?
CS If he had no weapons then all he would have had to have done is fully cooperate and there would have been no war. Before the war, none of the members of the Security Council believed he had no WMD. France, Germany, President Clinton, Hillary, all the major newspapers, and both Republicans as well as Democrats expressed this belief. So many believed this because of evidence collected by U.S., British and other intelligence services. In addition, there were many Iraqi defectors who testified to Saddam's various weapons programs. The question was never whether or not he had weapons, but what he was doing with them. I'll bet even you believed he had WMDs before the war, didn't you?
CP I'm not sure what I thought.
CS Maybe you just don't want to remember. There was not one voice that I heard speaking up saying that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. The question now should not be whether or not he had them, but where they are?
CP But if no WMDs are found then the war is not justified.
CS And since we did not find 225,000 dead bodies in Bosnia then that war was not justified either?
CP But they did find some bodies.
CS And we did find evidence that Saddam Hussein had illegal weapons. We have found rockets that violated UN resolutions. They found chemical residue in the Tigris River right after the war indicating chemicals were dumped there and the Iraqi soldiers were issued gas masks.

Several months after the war in Bosnia they also had very little evidence of the atrocities, but now three and a half years later a mild case is developing. Why are you so patient with the developing evidence in a Democrat's war, but not a Republicans'?
CP You're twisting things.
CS I don't think so. It is a fact without dispute that in the past Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapons program as well as chemical weapons. Are you saying that one day he just woke up and decided to be a nice guy and destroy them all just before the war?
CP He could have.
CS And a Martian could land in my front yard tomorrow. But let us go the extra mile here and assume that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. You must admit that he had a powerful hatred toward America.
CP I guess I could agree with that.
CS And even though we cannot prove a connection with 911, we know he rejoiced at the attack, did he not?
CP I'll give you that. I did read that in the papers.
CS We know that he had up to $10 billion a year oil money to play with and he was willing to use it in the support of terrorism. For instance, he openly encouraged suicide bombers in Israel by giving $25,000 cash to surviving family members. Now let us suppose you were Saddam Hussein, had billions to play with and wanted to cause havoc with the United States, Britain and Israel. What would you do?
CP I'm not sure.
CS It doesn't take much imagination to come up with some whoppers here. If you were him wouldn't you be willing to give money to Al-Qaeda for the sake of revenge?
CP But Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda have differences.
CS But that is nothing compared to the differences between the U.S. and himself. Just as we teamed up with Stalin to defeat the greater enemy of Nazism, it is very probable that he would assist anyone who seeks to damage us, is it not?
CP It's possible.
CS Again, let us suppose that Saddam has no nuclear weapons program, but has billions to play with. It is a year or two from now and North Korea has ten working nuclear weapons. They do not want to use them because it would start a war they could not win. Saddam is not so gun shy, however and he offers to buy three of them along with their assistance. North Korea is desperate for money so they make a deal. Saddam Hussein then places a warhead on one of his illegal rockets, which we know he had and points it at Israel. He smuggles a second one down through the Canadian border and plants it in Washington DC. Then he sneaks a third into London. Then, at his command they are all detonated at the same time. Of course, this devastates the whole free world in many ways and propels Saddam Hussein to Messiah status in the eyes of many Moslems. Additional millions now pledge allegiance to him.

Do you think you would support a regime change at this point - and by any means possible?
CP Of Course.
CS Yet with all the evidence before us of his desire to do us harm you do not support his present removal?
CP No. I say there is not enough evidence.
CS Yet you thought there was enough evidence to remove Slobodan Milosevic, even though he has not yet, after three and a half years, been proven guilty?
CP Yes.
CS Yet Slobodan Milosevic expressed no desire to harm the United States, Britain or Israel as has Saddam Hussein?
CP I don't recall.
CS Am I stating the truth that if you could go back in time and were in charge of things that you would still wage war against Slobodan Milosevic, but would have left Saddam Hussein in power?
CP Yes. That would be the case.
CS Would you also accept the responsibility of the blood on your hands of millions and perhaps billions of lives?
CP You're speaking hypothetically here.
CS But I am speaking of a strong probability. Now I'll speak of a proven fact. By leaving Saddam in power are you willing to accept the blood on your hands of an untold number of additional Iraqis who would be tortured and killed? There is no doubt this would happen.
CP (No response).
CS And would you also take the responsibility for the denial of freedom to 26,000,000 Iraqis?
CP (No response).
CS And would you also take responsibility for removing the one spark of hope that may one day transform the entire Middle East to democratic government?
(No response)
CHECKMATE

You are authorized to circulate this far and wide as long as the copyright notice is included.