Bush Declares War; Americans Rally Round their Commander in Chief

March 19, 2003. At approximately 10:15 p.m. Eastern time this evening, George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. As expected and predicted in the press, the nation rallied around their Commander in Chief.

One peace activist chirped, “Oh, yes, I traveled all over the country to participate in peace marches. I called my congressmen, handed out leaflets, made phone calls, you name it. But, the minute that our beloved great leader declared war on the nation of Iraq, I knew that I was wrong to want peace. I knew I had to rally around the President. If he wanted to destroy a war- and sanction-torn country for the sake of padding his own and his cronies' pockets by controlling that country's oil, then who was I to question it?”

Another offered similar sentiments. “I finally realized that the war on Iraq was only wrong until it started. Then, it automatically became right. Anyway, that's what they keep telling me in the media.”

A third peace activist also chimed in: “Before the war started, I was completely anti-Bush, which included being anti-war. I went vegan and started using wind power to power my home. Then, I joined Move On, A.N.S.W.E.R., Code Pink, the ACLU, and every other anti-war, anti-Bush organization I could find. I listened to www.wpfw.org online for 'Democracy now!' and 'Peacewatch.' I did everything I could to stop the war and stay abreast of alternative voices to corporate, embedded media. But, now that our beloved great leader has finally blessed us by declaring the wonderful God-approved war against the religious fundamentalist infidels, I'm so much happier. Now, all I listen to is Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly; all I read is the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal. I'm a card-carrying Republican now, too. I've already arranged to sell the bicycle I've been commuting to work with for the past twelve years and bought me a big, fancy, fine Corinthian-leather-upholstered, twelve-cylinder, eight-mile-per-gallon SUV so I can drive that half mile in style. I've even set up an appointment for a full frontal lobotomy next Tuesday. So, now you can stop calling, threatening, and harassing me, right, Mr. Ashcroft?”

A self-satisfied Mr. Bush greeted these observers' sentiments warmly from his snug, cozy bunker several hundred yards below the Oval Office. “Of course, I knew that all Americans were in unanimous agreement with me from years before I was even elected to this great office. Heck, it's just that they weren't all admitting it yet for some strange reason I'm sure none of us will ever understand. But, if we weren't unanimous enough before, we sure are even more unanimous enough now. And I'm sure we can all agree on that.”

On the eve of destruction, we of The Scallion would like briefly to preempt our regularly scheduled programming
to bring you a poem by Ellen Bass:

Pray for Peace

Pray to whomever you kneel down to:
Jesus nailed to his wooden or marble or plastic cross,
his suffering face bent to kiss you,
Buddha still under the Bo tree in scorching heat,
Adonai, Allah, raise your arms to Mary
that she may lay her palm on our brows,
to Shekinhah, Queen of Heaven and Earth,
to Inanna in her stripped descent.

Hawk or Wolf, or the Great Whale, Record Keeper
of time before, time now, time ahead, pray. Bow down
to terriers and shepherds and siamese cats.
Fields of artichokes and elegant strawberries.

Pray to the bus driver who takes you to work,
pray on the bus, pray for everyone riding that bus
and for everyone riding buses all over the world.
If you haven't been on a bus in a long time,
climb the few steps, drop some silver, and pray.

Waiting in line for the movies, for the ATM,
for your latté and croissant, offer your plea.
Make your eating and drinking a supplication.
Make your slicing of carrots a holy act,
each translucent layer of the onion a deeper prayer.

Make the brushing of your hair
a prayer, every strand its own voice,
singing in the choir on your head.
As you wash your face, the water slipping
through your fingers, a prayer:
water, softest thing on earth, gentleness
that wears away rock.

Making love, of course, is already a prayer.
Skin and open mouths worshipping that skin,
the fragile cases we are poured into,
each caresses a season of peace.

If you're hungry, pray.
If you're tired, pray to Gandhi and Dorothy Day.
Shakespeare. Sappho. Sojourner Truth.
Pray to the angels and the ghost of your grandfather.

When you walk to your car, to the mailbox,
to the video store, let each step
be a prayer that we all keep our legs,
that we do not blow off anyone else's legs.
Or crush their skulls.
And if you are riding on a bicycle
or a skateboard, in a wheel chair, each revolution
of the wheels a prayer that as the earth revolves
we will do less harm, less harm, less harm.

And as you work, typing with a new manicure,
a tiny palm tree painted on one pearlescent nail
or delivering soda or drawing good blood
into rubber-capped vials, writing on a blackboard
with yellow chalk, twirling pizzas, pray for peace.

With each breath in, take in the faith of those
who have believed when belief seemed foolish,
who persevered. With each breath out, cherish.

Pull weeds for peace, turn over in your sleep for peace,
feed the birds for peace, each shiny seed
that spills onto the earth, another second of peace.
Wash your dishes, call your mother, drink wine.

Shovel leaves or snow or trash from your sidewalk.
Make a path. Fold a photo of a dead child
around your VISA card. Gnaw your crust
of prayer, scoop your prayer water from the gutter.
Mumble along like a crazy person, stumbling
your prayer through the streets.

---
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

I AM NOT CONVINCED!

As foreign nationals are being instructed by their governments to leave Iraq this Monday, March 17, 2003, a U.S.-led war on Iraq seems imminent--poised to begin within the next scant handful of days. After months of nonstop propaganda denouncing Saddam Hussein’s savage, ruthless regime and praising the moral religiosity of George W. Bush, I find that I am still not convinced that America or the world needs this war.

I am convinced that Saddam Hussein is a despot and thug and does not belong in power, despite U.S. support he received in opposition of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and despite the fact that President George H. W. Bush walked away from the first Gulf war without removing Saddam Hussein from power, as he originally promised to do. I am convinced that the Iraqi people have suffered greatly, not only under their current leader but also under U.S. sanctions. I believe that they deserve far better than they are getting or indeed have gotten over the past decade.

Thus far, I flatter myself that I agree with most Americans who do want this war. But this is probably where we part paths. Let me state for the record exactly why I am against this war. In short, I do not believe in Mr. Bush’s stated motives or moral high ground for going to war (regardless of what his handlers want me to think); I do not believe that this country has the right in this case to set the precedent it seems determined to set in the next few days (how will we react when the next country uses Mr. Bush's precedent to justify its aggression on some other hapless, weaker country?); I do not believe that the American military can accomplish its objectives of deposing Saddam Hussein; I do not believe that this administration would seriously attempt--let alone complete--the rebuilding of a post-war Iraq; I do not believe that this war is at all in the best interests of the ordinary American citizen and his or her security against terrorism; and I do not believe that this war will do more good than harm to America, Iraq, and the world. Each of these points may be discussed in turn.

I do not believe in this administration’s stated motives for this war. I have yet to see definitive proof that Iraq poses a serious threat to this country and its security. Based on news reports I have seen, I believe that North Korea poses a far greater threat to the U.S. because it has weapons of mass destruction and is willing to sell them to all comers, including al Qaeda and other enemies of the U.S. I have not seen any proof that Iraq has comparable resources--only assertions (and the occasional forgery) from Bush and Co.

Furthermore--and I realize that this is a personal judgment--I simply do not trust this administration at its word. I find it impossible to trust Mr. Bush when he claims that he wants to deliver democracy to the people of Iraq as a God-given right. Given Bush’s track record in public office, I find it far easier to examine his motives in terms of what’s in it for him--and the irrepressible reply is “money.” Money for himself, his big business cronies, and his proponents who helped him into office in November 2000. I find it easier to believe that Mr. Bush--or should I say his clique of handlers?--wants control of Iraqi oil for his oilmen cronies: if Iraq’s main export was broccoli, I do not honestly believe that we would be about to wage this war. I realize that this is opinion on my part, but I have yet to see it definitively controverted.

It seems fair to say that Saddam Hussein would not have disarmed one iota as far as he has if he hadn't been staring down a quarter of a million gun barrels. It also seems fair to say that the self-imposed exile of the man Saddam Hussein would not even remotely address the root of the problem caused by the entrenchment of the Baath party that helped empower and nourish the thriving regime. Rather, such an exile would merely be a cosmetic solution that would allow Bush to back down gracefully without losing face, but, perhaps, it could offer a starting point for true disarmament.

But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that George W. Bush is a pure, holy, righteous, upstanding man acting on his own carefully conceived initiatives and that he truly believes what he says about disarming Saddam and liberating Iraq because it is the right thing to. Does that, then, justify the slaughter that will ensue from the “shock and awe” campaign being promised us by our military leaders? Is it possible that the resources we bring to war--the hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars--can only be used for violence? Are our nation’s leaders really too stupid to come up with a better alternative?

Despite my personal opinion of Mr. Bush, I must admit it: I don’t think so.

But let us suppose, again, that Bush and Co. are too unimaginative to engineer an approach that will disarm Saddam Hussein and/or remove him from power without waging an all-out military attack. Let us also assume that Saddam Hussein chooses not to disarm or step down sufficiently to divert the U.S.’s promise to attack. So it begins … but where does it end? Do U.S. troops work their way through the Middle East until the sociopolitical landscape has been reshaped to Mr. Bush’s satisfaction? This, of course, would leave North Korea as the next target. Then what? Who’s on the list after that, China? And what is our moral high ground when Israel makes a pre-emptive strike against Palestine? (Oops, I forgot--it's OK if we or our allies commit atrocities just as long as nobody else does or challenges our authority to live above the laws that govern everybody else.) Personally, I feel that North Korea poses a far greater threat to U.S. security than Iraq. So, wouldn’t attacking Iraq attenuate our forces to the point of giving North Korea a dangerous advantage, especially when Kim Jong Il has already proven himself all too eager to call our bluffs?

And what about the egregious double standard regarding Israel? Nobody--but nobody--knows how many or what types of weapons of mass destruction Israel has. JFK was the last to investigate, but he was assassinated shortly after instigating his investigation. Has any American administration even inquired into this lately? There should be no doubt that Israel poses a major threat to its neighbors, especially Palestine. In evidence: violation after violation of U.N. resolution condemning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, especially civilians. Israel’s aggressions are tantamount to war crimes--war crimes knowingly and complicitly condoned by the U.S. Before dismissing the U.N. as irrelevant, perhaps the U.S. should examine its own attitudes and actions in the midst of its credibility crisis. Perhaps the U.S. would find more allies in the U.N. if it worked toward closing the gaping credibility gap by presenting a more consistent, believable reality.

I also believe that it is thoroughly, unrealistically naïve to expect that America will accomplish its objective to remove Saddam Hussein from power any more than we succeeded in capturing Osama bin Laden when we invaded Afghanistan--after all, that and dismantling al Qaeda were our two stated objectives in that war cum police action. Hasn't anyone noticed that all we succeeded in doing was to topple the Taliban before we yawned with ennui and declared ourselves wildly victorious?

What about the long-term effects of a war in Iraq?

Even if, by some miracle, Saddam Hussein stepped down from power tomorrow morning, the problem of disarming Iraq and rescuing it from despotism would be far from solved. Removing Saddam and sons does nothing to depose the Baath party--the rest of his family--from power; nor does it miraculously remodel the culture to Western liking. Even Mr. Bush’s little war may not be enough to remove so vast and deeply rooted a roadblock to establishing a democracy in Iraq.

But what about the Iraqi people? The long-suffering Iraqis are no strangers to living--and dying--under the threat of death and destruction. Mr. Bush has promised to rebuild their nation at the end of this war, but, when I see just how far he has--or should I say ‘hasn’t’?--gone to rebuild Afghanistan, I find it impossible to take him at all seriously. This administration promised to institute a democratic government in Afghanistan. As citizens of the world, we were promised that everyday life would be made dramatically better for the ordinary citizens of Afghanistan, especially women. So far, this has not been the case once the country was turned over to a series of squabbling warlords. Men are subjected to a barely civilized form of highway robbery as they bribe their way past all comers in their attempts to conduct their ordinary business; women are still expected to wear the burqha and are subjected to humiliating, physically invasive chastity exams at the slightest whims of the men around them. Given America’s track record in recent decades, including Afghanistan, I have absolutely zero faith in this government to follow through on its promises to help rebuild Iraq unless there is money in it for them--under this illustrious administration, that means tax money, folks, like it or not. Even then, I have zero faith that this nation has the attention span to make a halfway decent job of it. Consequently, I have every expectation that, if/when we do invade Iraq, we will surely leave that nation worse off than it was before we stepped in.

But what about Americans? How will we fare in the event of war? I strongly believe that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will instigate greatly increased anti-American terrorism on American and other soil. I have heard it said that this would happen anyway; however, I am unconvinced by that argument because I have seen no proof of terrorism on American soil since 9/11--surely, if it were going to happen anyway, it would already be happening. It is possible that there are terrorists here, waiting to see what Bush will do before deciding to strike. If so, I shudder to think what they may have planned. Even supposing that al Qaeda is too weak or injured to pose us a serious threat, until we deal with root causes of Mid-Eastern anti-Americanism, we will continue to be vulnerable to fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. But even if we as a nation are prepared to tolerate homeland terrorism against us as a necessary evil in the necessity of deposing Saddam Hussein and disarming Iraq, then what do we stand to gain by winning this war? With their contracts for millions and billions for reconstruction, the Halliburtons and ABBs stand to do quite nicely for themselves, but what about the average American? Personally, I feel that the average American will be one of the greatest losers in this war--although the average Iraqi will fare far worse. I believe that the average American will be subject to terrorist attacks at home and abroad, provided that he or she is traveling to a locale that will to some extent welcome Americans. And that pool of American-friendly destinations may dwindle sharply. Americans may find their freedoms to travel sharply curtailed as fewer once-friendly nations welcome Americans, perhaps in defiance of this administration’s foreign policies or perhaps to avoid becoming a target for terrorism by appearing to side with the U.S. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt that regime change in Iraq really will make the world one jot safer for America--in fact, I believe the exact opposite: that this war will make the world far more dangerous for all Americans for a very long time.

How responsible are we for policing the despots and freeing the downtrodden of the world? Perhaps, because this great nation has so much wealth and so many advantages, we are indeed responsible to help our global neighbors. But wouldn’t our cause be better served by relying on unifying peaceful means rather than divisive war--by promoting solutions that focus on the long term rather than the next election? Peace does not mean inaction. It does not mean accommodating terrorists and despots and apologizing for our existence. It means dealing directly with the problem at its roots by clear and direct diplomacy between the U.S. and Iraq--without the U.N. It is not the U.N.’s reaction to Mr. Bush’s call to arms against Iraq that relegates the U.N. to irrelevance; it is the nature of the body itself, which nations within it hold the most power, and how they wield that power. (France's unadorned bid to protect its self interests, which mirrors America's own modus operandi, prove that beyond the shadow of a doubt. It is high time for that august body to reinvent itself for the good of the world: to offer a true form of world government that can be wielded to hold all world leaders accountable--to prevent the sort of faith-based military hegemony sought by Mr. Bush and his handlers.) Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the U.S. to go it alone with Iraq when it is the U.S. alone that takes issue with Iraq. But, instead of starting a war that will takes generations’ worth of outreach and goodwill to clean up, if ever, America should work to understand the Middle East, its history, and how the words and actions of this and past administrations have contributed to or detracted from that history.

Only when America becomes a true citizen of the world and strives for peace and unity with its global neighbors instead of seeking to invade and subjugate them will a lasting solution to problems like Saddam Hussein be reached.