Donn W. Fletcher
Sunday, Oct. 13, 2002

1. Saddam Hussein is an "evil" and "murderous tyrant."

2. He has "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" and his enemies.

3. He is actively "seeking to acquire" nuclear technology.

4. He has ties "to al-Qaeda" and is harboring its members in Iraq.

5. He "supports terrorism" and may provide weapons and technology "to terrorists."

6. He harbored "Abu Nidal," who Bush said is responsible for the 1985 Achille Lauro killing.

7. He has "violated U.N. sanctions for eleven years."

8. Bush desires to bring "democracy" and freedom to the "oppressed" people of Iraq.

9. Saddam Hussein "poses an imminent threat" to the safety of America and its citizens.

Let's look at each of these assertions by President Bush as grounds for "a regime change" and the elimination of the head of state of a sovereign nation in the context of overall U.S. policy, how the U.S. pre-emptively attacking Iraq may be viewed by other citizens of the world, and the impact it may have on the U.S. and Americans.

Saddam Is Evil

The U.S. has a history of supporting "evil" and "murderous" tyrants, including Saddam Hussein. Stalin, with whom the U.S. allied during WWII, was one of the worst. The Clinton administration used the U.S. military to shore up Aristide in Haiti. The U.S. has financed and supported evil, murderous tyrants in Africa for the last 30 years. The U.S. did nothing about Pol Pot, one of the worst murderers of the 20th century. U.S. ally Marcos, of the Philippines, was an "evil" suppressor and exploiter of "his own people." Clinton even had the U.S. military provide protection for Aidid in Somalia.

It is doubtful that the means used to kill the citizens of a country is much of a consideration to those killed. However, from where the "murderous tyrant" receives support and the fact of his actions are important. Thus, U.S. policy in this regard has earned the enmity of many of the world's people. This assertion as reason to attack Iraq is a non-starter that will be recognized by most as the hypocrisy it represents, earning even more enmity and increasing risks for Americans.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

That Saddam has "used weapons of mass destruction against his own people" is technically untrue. Iraq is the least ethnically and religiously homogeneous of the Middle Eastern oil-producing states. The Shiites represent two-thirds of the population. The other third is divided between the Kurds and the non-Kurdish, smaller population of Sunni Muslims, of which Saddam is a member. He has used chemical weapons against the other two groups, which are technically not "his own people."

Saddam also used these weapons against the Iranians without the U.S. protesting or taking action, because he was an ally and recipient of U.S. military aid while the Iranians were considered the enemy. Thus, for the U.S. to base an attack against Saddam on his use of these weapons is not supportable and will be seen as the hypocrisy it represents.

Nuclear Technology

That Saddam is actively "seeking to acquire" nuclear technology is probably true. It is also nothing new. And the U.S. government knows where the technology is available as well as who is selling it. The Chinese and the North Koreans are purveyors of this and other military technology to terrorist states in the Middle East. But what has the U.S. done regarding these terrorist-supporting states?

Under Clinton, the U.S. helped the North Koreans build their nuclear power assets. With Republicans in control of Congress, the U.S. bestowed permanent favored nation trading status on China. And the U.S. has, recently, chosen a very low profile in its differences with North Korea over arms and technology sales to enemies of America.

Therefore, using the "seeking to acquire" concept as a reason to attack Iraq is the equivalent of putting the buyers of drugs in jail while giving the known importers and dealers a "pass."

That Bush's intended action against Iraq is being based on this concept demonstrates weakness on the part of the U.S. and will confirm the contention of many that the U.S. is an international bully. It is willing to give the only other real international military power and its satellite communist state a "pass" on supplying U.S. enemies with weapons technology because of their size and power, but it is willing to attack the small, relatively weak purchaser. This action will serve to further weaken U.S. prestige and will "open the gate" for others to "bully" smaller states as they desire.

Ties to al-Qaeda

If Bush desires to oust Saddam because he has ties "to al-Qaeda" and is harboring its members, fairness and consistency demand that he also oust the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and even the new U.S.-backed interim government of Afghanistan that is setting Taliban and al-Qaeda members free as fast as the U.S. military captures them.

The Saudis are the source of the lion's share of al-Qaeda and have told the U.S. it is "out of the question" for the U.S. to question members within Saudi Arabia. Iran has admitted that al-Qaeda is seeking refuge from the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Ditto Pakistan. Yemen is home to terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Failure to target these regimes also will raise questions about the real reasons behind an attack on Iraq and will present U.S. policy as duplicitous and hypocritical.

Saddam Supports Terrorism

If Bush acts against Saddam because he "supports terrorism" and supplies weapons "to terrorists," for the sake of policy consistency and U.S. credibility he also must act against the Saudis and the Iranians. The Saudis have provided more money to families of terrorists than Iraq has, and the Iranians shipped a boatload of weapons to terrorists in Israel.

Saddam Harbored Abu Nidal

In his speech on Oct. 7, Bush attempted to tie Saddam to the terrorist killing of American citizens by Abu Nidal in the Mediterranean years ago. This was disingenuous on the part of Bush because he has provided support for Yasser Arafat even though the U.S. government is aware of Arafat's role in similar terrorist acts, including his involvement in the Achille Lauro incident.

Saddam Has Violated U.N. Sanctions

Bush offering that Saddam has "violated U.N. sanctions for 11 years" as a reason to attack Iraq just doesn't "wash." Is the U.S. the enforcer for the U.N.? If the U.S. is to undertake the worldwide enforcement of U.N. sanctions that are currently being violated, its military needs to be greatly increased.

Bringing Democracy to Iraq

Bush's contention of being "a friend" to the "oppressed" people of Iraq and bringing "democracy" to them through the ouster of Saddam has a noble sound to it. But what are the facts? Who is oppressed? Where can "democracy" be found in the Middle East?

Iraq is the only Middle East nation, other than Israel, that has a non-Islamic, secular government. Except those bent on overthrowing Saddam, the citizens of Iraq are probably less oppressed than those in the other nations with Islamic governments.

This is particularly true for women. In the other Islamic countries they are deprived of many rights afforded male citizens, including education. In Iraq they are educated participants in government and society. What would be the status of anyone attempting to oust the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the ayatollahs of Iran or the kings of the other countries?

Iraq has a higher per capita GNP than Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen. It is over four times greater than that of U.S. ally Egypt. Iraq also provides health-care services and education.

So, if Bush is being genuine about enforcing "democracy" in the Middle East, the facts indicate that he should begin in any country other than Iraq. Egypt would be a good place to begin this effort. Or maybe Saudi Arabia.

Saddam 'Poses an Imminent Threat' to America

Bush has failed to present the case that Saddam's regime "poses an imminent threat" to America. He has also failed to substantiate this claim to the intelligence committees of Congress. Highly placed government officials have refuted Bush's assertions and presented contradictory testimony to congressional committees.

The No. 2 executive of the CIA, speaking for the director before Congress on Oct. 2, stated that the probability of an attack by Saddam against U.S. interests in the foreseeable future is "low."

The CIA, which is charged with the responsibility of knowing about such things, has gone on record warning that attacking Iraq could increase terror. It would put Saddam in a position of having nothing to lose, and he would probably attempt to cause as much damage as possible if he knows he is going out.

Bush's assertion that Saddam "stands alone" as an imminent threat was contradicted by the secretary of defense, who told Congress earlier this year, "Syria, Libya, Iraq and Iran are developing weapons of terror and giving them to terrorists." The ex-director of the FBI recently told Congress that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism.

President Bush's Real Agenda

Should not everyone question why the president of the United States is assiduously pursuing a war on the basis of assertions that are not substantiated and are actually refuted by the secretary of defense and the head of the Central Intelligence Agency? It is not unpatriotic to ask this question. There is a good reason for it.

Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a strong proclivity for this most basic of human characteristics: self-preservation. He has been rationally brutal in his use of any weapons at his disposal to ensure his power and longevity. He has also demonstrated this rationality by choosing not to use certain weapons against U.S. forces or Israel during the Gulf War because their use would have resulted in the opposite of self-preservation.

Why, then, would this man suddenly decide to act in a way he knows would result in self-destruction? Logic argues he would not.

Therefore, to determine why President Bush is rushing into a war that may cause more, rather than less, peril for Americans, possibly result in thousands of American military dead, tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, cost as much as $200 billion, possibly put the entire Middle East in conflict, drive the price of oil to heights disastrous for the U.S. economy, and result in the U.S. being in a Middle Eastern quagmire for decades, it is necessary to look beyond the president's assertions.

The Oil Connection

It is necessary to look at U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil and at a map of the Middle East and its recent history and current trends.

The U.S. imports over 60 percent of the oil it consumes. Nine percent of it comes from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has 25 percent of known world reserves under its sands. Militant Islam is sweeping the Middle East. Over 80 percent of Kuwait citizens say they hate America and think it got what it deserved on Sept. 11, 2001. A super majority of Saudi citizens have the same opinion.

Iraq is strategically located, surrounded by Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. It has the largest conventional military that has threatening potential for its neighbors, which is threatening to the U.S. because of oil dependence that is much worse after eight years of Bill Clinton's policies.

Is it possible the concern is about the potential disruption of oil supplies by militant Islamic influence, coupled with the decline of corrupt, suppressionist regimes such as that of the Saudis and the potential of the region's only military power, Iraq, to seize on the opportunities that might be presented to it as a result? Certainly!

Bush is beating the drums of war not to deter further terrorism, as he says, but to insure the U.S. supply of oil. Apparently, a decision has been made that the threat to the U.S. economy of the resulting increase in the price of oil and the potential negative impact of the war is much less an evil than the potential devastation of the U.S. economy that could result from control of Middle Eastern oil by Saddam's regime or, worse, yet, that control allied with militant, anti-Western Islamic terrorist regimes.

Why Not Containment?

What about containment? After all, the U.S. and the rest of the West contained the Soviet Union for almost five decades. Why not have a policy of containment toward Iraq, militant Islam and the potential disruption of oil flows?

The U.S. and other Western economies were not dependent upon anything from the Soviet Union, and militant Islam cares more about its religious cause than it does about its prosperity, or the oil on which the West they hate is dependent. In fact, destruction of Western economies is its goal.

Thus, given its demonstrated nature, it is doubtful a well-armed Islam, especially with weapons of mass destruction, could be sufficiently contained to ensure the continued flow of oil. So, Bush is leading the U.S. to war not to prevent terrorism, but for self-preservation, preservation of the U.S. economy, which is tantamount to preservation of the United States of America.

Why the Hurry?

The answer is also self-preservation. The Middle East situation is like a fast-growing cancer. It is not known how long it might take it to metastasize into consumption of the flow of oil that is precious to the U.S. economy. It would be unacceptable to the administration for this to happen during the Bush "watch." It would also be disastrous to Bush's chances for a second term.

Thus, Bush is faced with the prospects of a declining economy over which he has little control, plus terrorism, or war that will probably negatively affect the economy and exacerbate terrorism in the short run but may be the only choice for the long term.

Therefore, rather than going into the 2004 election with a terrible economy and the potential disaster in the Middle East and having done nothing about either, Bush appears to have chosen to attempt to forestall the impending disaster during his "watch" and increase his chances of electoral success.

Fortunately, the interests of the presidency and those of the United States are in concert. It could be different with other people with another agenda.

Too bad oil has such a bad name that Bush believes he cannot "level" with the American public about this war. He should. For young Americans to die without them or their families knowing what they are really dying for is terrible.

Copyright © 2002 by Donn W. Fletcher. All rights reserved.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Al-Qaeda
George W. Bush
Saddam Hussein/Iraq
War on Terrorism

Editor's note:
Saddam Hussein’s race to make a nuclear bomb