A View From an Independent
The Bush administration is anxious to rush into a war against Saddam Hussein, and is using Dick Cheney and others to spread the word that Saddam is evil and intends to use weapons of mass destruction, and that war is inevitable and necessary for the protection of American security. The Bush team has not supplied a single shred of evidence that Saddam is about to unleash chemical or biological weapons, nor have they tendered any proof that he even possesses such weapons. Since we are "at war with terrorism," a simple assertion by the President is evidently sufficient cause for action and no debate is required. Lots of reasonable people, including some very senior Republicans, are asking for corroboration, but that's now a moot point, because just yesterday Bush's own lawyers asserted that he has the right to declare war against Saddam without consulting with Congress or anyone else. Isn't that handy?
What will Bush and his friends gain if he declares war on Saddam this fall?
1) A strong spike in oil prices heading into the winter heating season - a huge plus for his biggest backers. The big oil companies and the companies that supply them, including Halliburton (from whence Cheney crept back into public office) will suck billions of dollars out of the American people in windfall profits if war is declared. Just the threat of war is already driving up prices, which of course result in immediate consumer oil and gas price hikes, even though the crude oil was bought months ago. Don't worry, investors! - gouging and price-fixing in the gasoline and heating oil markets is widely accepted and even expected, so buy some oil company stocks now - they'll just go up.
2) Bush will enjoy the temporary but sadly inevitable boost in opinion polls that occurs when a large sector of the electorate chooses to wave flags instead of engaging in productive debate about foreign policy. This same herd mentality allowed the Reagan/Bush administration to wage an unauthorized and illegal war in Nicaragua and to finance it by committing treason (the theft of weapons from the US arsenal, and the sale of those weapons to Iran - a terrorist country that was an avowed enemy of the US). Until I did some research, I did not know this, but apparently the penalty for treason is hanging ONLY if you are a regular citizen. If you are the President, the penalty for treason is having a national airport named after you. Of course, adultery by a sitting President carries the risk of impeachment, at least if the perp is a Democrat.
3) If the timing is right, an invasion of Iraq could lead to the strengthening of Republican candidates on Election Day, and a possible swing to Republican control of the Senate. This would inevitably pack the Judicial Branch with even more conservative judges, since there is a very large backlog of judicial appointments. This backlog was created by the Republicans who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration and who refused to schedule hearings to consider his appointees to the bench. Today, the Republican minority loudly proclaims that this eight-year backlog was created by the Democrats, who only recently gained control of the Senate. That's pathetic, and it's insulting to the intelligence of any voter who was not in a coma during the Clinton administration, even if you happened to agree with the ideology and tactics used by either side.
4) The American public's attention will be diverted away from corporate scandals and the Department of Justice's prosecution of (or failure to prosecute) the case against Enron's top executives. Kenneth Lay has not yet even been publicly mentioned by the DOJ, which seems to be selectively focused on only the financial division of Enron. Why is that? Surely, Lay's lavish donations to George W. Bush cannot have bought him immunity from prosecution...this isn't a country where bribing public officials is condoned, is it?
What do the American people stand to gain if Bush orders our armed forces to invade Iraq?
1) We will lose the already-tenuous support of our few Middle East allies. We will also lose the support of the UN and our NATO allies. Publicly, only Tony Blair has made positive noises about the invasion, and recent polls find that the majority of the British do not share his views. Other NATO countries are adamantly opposed to a new war in Iraq.
2) We Americans will be called upon to sacrifice to support the war effort. The war will cost us many billions in taxes and in higher fuel prices, and it will cost us any hope of a timely economic recovery. W’s war will place the lives of thousands of our young people in jeopardy and the loss of life will certainly be higher than during the incursion of Bush the Elder. Saddam will not fight in the desert this time, but will hunker down in cities, hoping that a large number of civilian casualties will gain him sympathy in the court of world opinion. He also hopes that a large volume of returning body bags will dim America's enthusiasm for adventure in Iraq.
3) Saddam's missiles are not capable of reaching US soil, so if he truly has weapons of mass destruction, and if he becomes desperate, he will lash out at Israel, which he regards as the US's surrogate. Israel has already stated that it will not forgo retaliation in the face of an attack. Iraq may not have nuclear weapons, but Israel does, and Sharon is just the man to employ them in a "just cause". The Muslim/Arab backlash from such a strike may not totally destroy Israel, but it will likely lead to a widespread and brutal conflict in the entire region, including Northern Africa, the Middle East, and perhaps Indo-China. When you factor in Iran's close relationship with China and Iraq's close relationships with Russia and France, you easily have the makings of a complex and unpredictable situation that could quickly turn into a world-wide conflagration. Targets of opportunity will likely be struck during such uncertain times, perhaps including Taiwan, Kashmir, Tibet, Sri Lanka, and North and South Korea, to name a few. Russia may also choose to reassert itself in Eastern Europe or the oil-rich Southern provinces. Bush's people must have advised him of these, and similar scenarios, but you'd never know it to hear him talk about his Iraq war.
W, you should come back to Maine and have a long talk with your father. You are about to screw up "big-time" to quote your VP, and you need to listen to somebody other than your handlers. This is no simple zero-sum "payback" situation, by which you can enrich your friends at the expense of the poor, the elderly, or the environment with no personal repercussions. This is the real deal, and many millions of people may die or suffer because of your lack of understanding of world affairs. It's too late to cram for this test - get some expert advice or we will all pay for your ignorance.
Some advice for the savvy investor: if you believe that King George will invade Iraq, you should call your broker right now, and invest in oil companies, defense companies, and producers of American flags and yellow ribbons. You'll make a killing - really.
