Pardon the Interruption: Another Look at Iraq
By Paul Thomas
Contributing Writer

Reading James Solomon's article in the March 14 issue of TSL, I couldn't help but be struck by something. Consciously or unconsciously, he makes an excellent case for opposing US foreign policy and the war in Iraq. The only trouble is, the article advocated the war in Iraq, but this dilemma can be easily remedied if the names, dates, and places are replaced with other, perhaps more elucidating ones. Luckily, I have taken the liberty and made the changes, differentiating my alterations from Solomon's original text parenthically. Let me preface this by saying that this is not intended as mockery or ridicule, or as an attack on his facts or credibility. I intend this simply as an exposition of the ironic subtext to American actions in the Persian Gulf today. To wit:

Why We Should and Need to [Oppose American Foreign Policy]

This campus has made a disturbing "rush to [apathy]." It seems many of the faculty and students on campus… have not taken the time or made the effort to [examine the context of American intervention in Iraq]….

Initially, one must come to terms with [America's] goals and the threat posed by [its] biological and chemical [and nuclear] arsenal. Simply put, [America] is an incredibly ambitious [country which views itself] as destined to accomplish "great" deeds. [It] has translated this into a desire to be the "superpower" of the Middle East [and world], dominating the other countries around [it] militarily and economically, as evidenced by its unprovoked invasions of [numerous countries, including Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Haiti, Cuba, Vietnam, and many others]. [It] has never disavowed this goal….

Given that [America] has not used [its weapons of mass destruction against the world] in the last [fifty-seven] years, one might ask why they represent a threat. The first threat is a possible connection with terrorists in the future…. "[Authors such as Noam Chomsky] have surely strained our trust hyping the connections between [the CIA and State Department] and [numerous dictators and terrorist groups, including the house of Sa'ud and Osama bin Laden], but skeptics have just as badly understated the mutual interests of these two thugs. All these monsters are at heart power-hungry, history-seeking opportunists. None have a record of being terribly fastidious about doctrine when it stands in the way of expedience." I have no doubt that if [America] believed a terrorist attack could not be traced back to [it], [it] would give [friendly clients its] weapons of mass destruction….

[The US] blames [Saddam] for stopping [its] dreams of dominating the Middle East when [he invaded the American client emirate of Kuwait]. In anger, it attempted [assassinations of heads of pro-Iraq organizations, continuing a brutal pattern extending at least as far back as 1973, when a CIA-funded terrorist coup overthrew the democratically elected President Allende of Chile]. Some have disputed [American] ties to this assassination attempt; however, [journalists such as Christopher Hitchens and authors such as Chomsky] have declared… that [American] guilt was easily proven and overwhelming….

The next issue one must come to terms with is [the Administration's] insatiable desire to acquire [new] nuclear weapon[s]. [Bush] views [new] nuclear weapon[s] as essential to [America's] mythology and [its] desires in the gulf region…. Throughout America's history we have never encountered another country which views possession of a nuclear weapon as a tool for aggression as opposed to a deterrent (emphasis added.) [America, of course, regularly uses threat of nuclear attack as a foreign policy tool, and reserves the right to first use of nuclear weapons in wartime. For specific instances of near-use of American nukes, and there are plenty, read William Schwartz and Charles Derber's book The Nuclear Seduction, available at Honnold Library when I finally get around to returning it.] Given that fact, [America's] acquisition of [new nuclear weapons capabilities such as "bunker-buster" mini-nukes] could cause a second Great Depression… and/or millions of deaths….

The cynics will declare that I am treating [America] as though it was "guilty until proven innocent." To be blunt, that's exactly what I'm doing and it's what the rest of the world should be [and is] doing too. Given [America's] history, which includes the use of WMD, the continued production of WMD [despite the capability to destroy all life on Earth several times over,] and its unprovoked invasion[s] of [numerous] countries, the burden of proof rests upon [the US] to show that [it] is disarming and no longer has any [new] WMD programs to speak of. To this day [it] has not even made a show of doing this [and no, I don't consider treaties like the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START) disarmament, after which the US still retains the capability to destroy the planet several times over]….

I have many fears regarding this current invasion. I fear the loss of civilians and Iraqi and American troops. I fear the long-term damage done to our alliances by this administration's unilateralist actions. I fear the repercussions of an invasion in the Arab world. I fear that by invading [Iraq] we are [encouraging Saddam's] use of chemical and biological weapons. [I fear that growing realization of American hypocrisy will doom the world to perpetual strife and violence.] I have come to the reluctant conclusion that this represents a war of [hypocritical American aggrandizement at the expense of the Iraqi people]….

Finally, an aside:

As I hope readers have realized, I am no friend of Saddam Hussein, who is one of the cruelest dictators of the twentieth century (an impressive group indeed). But American complicity in his rise to power (seen as a check on violently anti-American Iran), and the more generally disturbing trend of American foreign policy, cannot be ignored for expediency's sake. Even if they'd like to, America's leaders cannot erase the legacy of America's bad decisions in the past. Instead, they perpetuate the results of these decisions through a viscerally hostile and xenophobic set of policies which have virtually no hope of ultimate success and which threaten the ideals and rights Americans have come to regard as essential to human freedom. I hope I have accurately conveyed my frustration at the direction America is taking with our war in Iraq, and hope readers will agree that a vindictive America represents a far greater danger to world stability and peace than a crippled and isolated Saddam Hussein.