Tomorrow marks the anniversary of last years attack on the World Trade Center. As so often happens with great tragedies, this one is already being used for political purposes. The Bush administration is planning its kick-off campaign for selling Gulf War II with Bush’s speech tomorrow. The desecration of the dead has already begun.
War is very much in the air. Here are two well written pieces that point out the madness of the Bush policy. The first is an op-ed piece by Susan Sontag from today’s New York Times. The second is an opinion piece by Uri Avnery on the Gush Shalom website.
And just to cheer you up, here is Tom Tomorrow’s Optimist’s Guide to the War with Iraq. and What the President has learned since 9.11
The madness of war seems to be contagious. Tom Friedman, whom I used to think of as a relatively intelligent analyst, has gone off the deep end. In a recent piece entitled “$6 or $60″ Friedman says:
“…one thing I haven’t seen much planning for is the impact an attack on Iraq would have on the world’s oil market. Depending on how the war went, that impact could be very bad and lead to a sharp spike in oil prices, like $60-a-barrel oil. But — wait a minute — it could also be very good, and lead to $6-a-barrel oil that would weaken OPEC and, maybe, also weaken the Arab autocrats who depend on high oil prices to finance their illegitimate regimes and buy off opponents.”
“Raising this oil question is not an argument against taking down Saddam Hussein. He’s a bad man, building dangerous weapons, who has raped the future of two generations of Iraqis. The whole region would be improved by his ouster. It is an argument, though, for thinking through all the dimensions of any attack on Iraq. We’re not talking about a war in Tora Bora here. We’re talking about a war in the world’s main gas station…”
“Bottom line: A quick victory that brings Iraq fully back into the oil market could lead to a sharp fall in oil incomes throughout OPEC that could seriously weaken the oil cartel and rob its many autocratic regimes of the income they need to maintain their closed political systems. In fact, give me sustained $10-a-barrel oil and I’ll give you revolutions from Iran to Saudi Arabia, and throw in Venezuela.”
“If that scenario prevails, you could look at an invasion of Iraq as a possible two-for-one sale: destroy Saddam and destabilize OPEC at the same time. Buy one, get one free. But you better prepare for the consequences of both.”
I brought this lengthy quote so that someone won’t accuse me of putting words in Friedman’s mouth. Boiled down to a nutshell, Friedman seriously puts forth the arguement that if getting rid of Saddam makes the world safe for his SUV, then it might just be worth doing. As an added bonus we get to destabilize the whole Middle East. What fun! A two for one bargain!
What Friedman and all the rest of the war mongers always avoid talking about is the human price of war. Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die in this war – mostly innocent men, women and children. Hundreds, probably thousands of young American boys will be sacrificing their lives. For what? So that we can have $10/barrel oil? So Bush can play RISK with live soldiers? The unbearable lightness with which they discuss death and destruction drives me insane.
Well let’s make the question more concrete. I want to ask Thomas Friedman and the rest a simple question: are you willing to sacrifice your own child to get rid of Saddam? Is that a price you personally are willing to pay? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, how dare you be so eager to sacrifice the children of thousands of American and Iraqi parents?
The war mongerers often compare those of us who oppose this war to the the pre-WWII pacifists who opposed the war against Hitler. However, political analogies are quite slippery and can be applied at will. For example the main arguments the Bushies use to support the war against Saddam is that he will soon have nuclear capabilities and he has proven his willingness to use deadly weapons against his own people. Well those were the exact arguments Goldwater used to argue that the U.S. should go to war against the evil Soviet empire. Even in the depths of the Cold War, most Americans viewed Goldwater as a crazy lunatic, a madman who would lead the country to destruction. Now, his intellectual heirs have stolen the seat of power and their mad rush to war seems to be infectious. Let us remember that the patient policy of deterrence led to the eventual defeat of the Soviet Union. Every time the U.S. got involved in hotter wars (mostly by proxy) with the Soviet Union (Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind) the results were disastrous.
This war must be stopped before it begins!