Skip to main content.

Back to: >> Editorial


Countering a threat by war is justified when annihilation would surely occur by doing nothing. Sometimes it is necessary to shoot back when shot at. Al Qa'ida fired salvo after salvo until it escalated into the destruction of the World Trade Center. War against al Qa'ida became a moral, as well as a necessary duty; you cannot remain idle when your populace is repeatedly attacked.

Counter to, some would say causing that, American was and still is pursuing imperialistic policies. That view becomes clearer the farther you get from Pennsylvania Avenue. The net effect has been to humiliate a third of the world. Never mind that much of it is still basically Feudal in governance. Humiliated people, having nothing to lose, took up martyrdom to gain paradise--the ethos of a radical fringe.

We had been warned, and we overheard a lot of chatter that something big was coming. We also should have known the temper in the world of Islam, what Zionism was doing to our image, how our thirst for oil was alienating a third of the world. So, we bear a heavy load; at the least, we encouraged radicalism.

So we remained vulnerable in our arrogance. Winning the Cold War seems to have gone to our heads. We find ourselves today with the nuclear genie out of the bottle, as we try to restrain those known to have the wherewithal.

And now we have Iraq; quite another matter; one we brought on ourselves directly with military intervention. There never was justification. Except for Tony Blair, the rest of the world seemed to know that. The Bush Administration and Congress have put America on a slippery slope downward with no definitive outcome in sight--except great damage to our economy. There was no link between Iraq and terrorism when we deposed Hussein. But now there is!

Sites taking positions on the Iraq issue.

Antiwar rally— No Draft No Way
Gulf War Veterans — Veterans for Common Sense
International Action Center — Ramsey Clark
Irish Antiwar community — Headlines and Events
Overview of Iraq Crisis — Iraq Crisis Antiwar page
Poetry Site —
Political Action Site — "MoveOn"
United For Peace — The World Says No
Vietnam Veterans — Against the War

From the poet's site: (ref: NYT 31 January 2003)

"The world is howling,
bleeding and dying in banner
No hope from youthful pacifists,
anarchists; no solutions from
Men maddened with revealed
murder their neighbors with their
religious fervor, while claiming they're defending
our homespun junta exports the war machine..." Marilyn Hacker

"Teaching the first lesson and the last
great falling light of summer
will you last
longer than school time?"
Adrienne Rich, from "The School Among the Ruins."

From these texts it is obvious why Laura Bush canceled a gathering of poets, after inviting them!

In reference to Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, we have collected the following statements:

From Veterans for Common Sense we quote:

    "My father was Adlai Stevenson, who in 1962, as President Kennedy's representative to the United Nations, presented the Security Council with incontrovertible proof that the Soviet Union, a nuclear superpower, was installing missiles in Cuba and threatening to upset the world's "balance of terror."

    "That 'moment' had an obvious purpose: containing the Soviet Union and maintaining peace. It worked, and eventually the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight. This moment [Iraq] has a different purpose: war. The Bush administration clearly rejects the idea of containing Iraq through committed monitoring by the United Nations, even though this course is the better option."

British Broadcasting Corporation (United Kingdom)
7 Feb. 2003

    "In sharp contrast to what US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations, secret documents from the government of the United Kingdom viewed by BBC claim there is NO link between Iraq and bin Laden. The questions now are these: Why did Powell lie to Americans and the UN? And when will the US Congress, people, and press demand Powell and Bush be held accountable for their lies? Will the facts come out only AFTER the US has launched an offensive attack against Iraq?"

In reference to the BBC report, above, we quote from the New York Times, 8 Feb. 2003

    "Dr. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University who has compared the British report with the articles it used as sources, said that in some cases, the authors apparently changed phrases from the original articles to make the case against Iraq seem more extreme.

    "For instance, Dr. Rangwala said, a section on the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi directorate of general intelligence, appeared to have been lifted verbatim from Mr. Marashi's article, except for a few tweaks. Where Mr. Marashi mentions that the Mukhabarat's responsibilities include 'monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq,'the government document speaks of 'spying on foreign embassies in Iraq. 'Mr. Marashi's description of the Mukhabarat's role in 'aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes' becomes 'supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes.'"

The Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has this to say to Colin Powell.

    "Your intelligence agencies see it [Iraq] differently. On the same day you spoke in Cincinnati, a letter from the CIA to the Senate Intelligence Committee asserted that the probability is low that Iraq would initiate an attack with such weapons or give them to terrorists.UNLESS:

    "'Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.'

    "For now, continued the CIA letter, 'Baghdad appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical/biological warfare against the United States.' With his back against the wall, however, 'Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a weapons-of-mass-destruction attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'

    "Your Pentagon advisers draw a connection between war with Iraq and terrorism, but for the wrong reasons. The connection takes on much more reality in a post-US invasion scenario.

    "Indeed, it is our view that an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future. Far from eliminating the threat it would enhance it exponentially."

Elsewhere on this site we discuss some of the reasons why terrorism arises and why wars happen. See Extremism and its links.

In summary, both events are very much like throwing a lighted match at gasoline, mixing fuels and oxidizers. Once ignited, they are difficult or impossible to stop. War in Iraq will change the political landscape by violencein unpredictable ways. Until we recognize and deal with the root causes of war and terror, they will remain unchecked. This is a central lesson from history, not the wails of pacifism. By using old solutions we repeat the errors of history instead of seeking fresh air.

From the above, however, we see prima-facie evidence that the American and UK intelligence communities have been politicized. What kind of personality is it that puts self interest ahead of humankind?

The worst of this situation is that when we politicize our front lines, we no longer have solid facts to rest decisions on. An individual who does not recognize reality is said to be out-of-touch; crazy in other words. Could this be why our "allies" are critical of Mr. Bush?

For more in this connection see Guardians.

Human temperament is not born with the wisdom of experience, it is born susceptible to suggestion, resentful of abuse, and often with a desire for retribution.

The story of Ameer Ali puts the terror personality in clear relief: he was at once a doting father and serial murderer motivated by booty and governed by Allah and the Hindu Goddess, Kali. Such extremists are typically Authoritarian personalities of the most radical types. Islam, especially at this point in its history, is breeding authoritarian terrorists like flies. Much of this is done with malice against non-Muslims; it is also inherent in the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic Law. Whatever that balance, invading Iraq can only increase the malice side of the equation.

War and terror is not just Islamic.

For a positive world view of history in the making, visit: Hope and Solutions . We just hope that these threads are not drowned out by the drumbeats of war, or if there is war, that they survive.


No comments yet

To be able to post comments, please register on the site.