By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Banner of Liberty (www.bannerofliberty.com)
April 22, 2003
A group of University professors, prior to the war, organized to oppose President George W. Bush’s determination to oust Saddam Hussein. Their petition, and later full-page ad in the New York Times stated, “Invasion to replace the Hussein regime is not in the best interests of the United States, the region, or the world. An invasion of Iraq and destruction of the Hussein regime may lead to prolonged instability in Iraq; destabilization of the wider Middle East including the possibility of a prolonged and heightened conflict between Israel and the Palestinians; increased popular appeal of radical Islamic movements and increased anti-Americanism worldwide; and increased terrorism in the U.S. and abroad. Invading Iraq therefore will probably make both the region and the world less secure, not more secure.”
You don’t need a university degree to know now that every point made in that petition was wrong. Almost anyone, even kids in elementary school, who have been watching the reports of embedded journalists in the past four weeks now knows that the so-called “Arab Street” in Iraq actually now embrace American Marines and Soldiers and the threat of terrorism in the United States has been reduced. The Middle East region is more secure, not less secure and the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was not heightened, but lessened. Even as pre-war bellicose North Korea has suddenly decided that perhaps it COULD negotiate an end to its drive to become a nuclear threat.
As recently as January 2003, Phyllis Bennis wrote in an Institute for Policy Studies pamphlet entitled “Understanding the U.S.-Iraq Crisis:” “UN planning documents anticipate that 500,000 Iraqis would be injured in the early stages of a U.S. war. The UN describes war in Iraq resulting in a crippled nation with shattered infrastructure, electricity grid badly damaged, and major damage to the oil industry. UN reports anticipate civilian damage far beyond that of the 1991 Gulf war, and a resulting refugee crisis.”
Iraqi looters, not the military, have done most of the damage to Iraq’s infrastructure. The pamphlet’s warned that “as a result of hostilities, over 1.2 million asylum seekers could attempt to cross international borders to seek refuge and protection in neighboring countries. …New mass displacement would occur in the hardest hit and most insecure areas. Urban areas would be particularly affected.” was wrong by at least 1.2 million people. More people have come INTO Iraq than have left it and many of those who have left are being sought for war crimes. The UN planned for “border area transit camps for as many as half a million Iraqis.” Those camps remain empty. Considering the magnitude of their wrongness, can we assume that Phyllis Bennis and the professors who signed that petition are now admitting they apparently were misinformed and now support the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime?
Unfortunately, no, we cannot. On April 3, 2003, before US Troops rode into Baghdad, Bennis and other learned peaceniks endorsed an article entitled: What We Do Now - A Peace Agenda, written by David Cortright, published in the NATION magazine which urged: “We must organize a broadly based campaign to address the causes and consequences of this war and to prevent such misguided adventures in the future.”
Cortright complained, “…The Bush Administration claims that the deadly nexus of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction requires a radical new foreign policy of military pre-emption and the unilateral assertion of American technological power. This is the policy being implemented in Iraq. We must offer an alternative vision.”
Cortright’s agenda, straight out of the 1960s, then calls for what they had BEEN calling for before the war proved them totally wrong: “We favor vigorous UN weapons inspections to verify disarmament. We call on our government to work diplomatically through the UN Security Council. …” In fact, Cortright’s agenda calls for “The UN weapons-inspection capability” to be “increased a hundredfold and deployed throughout the world to monitor and verify the universal ban on weapons of mass destruction. Nations that refuse to comply with verified disarmament requirements should be subjected to targeted sanctions and coercive diplomatic pressures from the UN and other regional security organizations. Nations that cooperate with disarmament mandates should receive inducements in the form of economic assistance, trade and technology preferences, and security assurances …Our immediate challenge in implementing these short- and long-term objectives is to change the political direction and leadership of the United States…. Our chances of preventing future military disasters depend in the short run on removing the Bush Administration from office and electing a new political leadership dedicated to international cooperation and peace. This is a formidable political challenge.”
I can hardly wait until the rest of the world decides to subject the United States to “sanctions” while providing us “economic assistance, trade and technology preferences and security assurances” if we give in to the United Nations and “coopoerate.” Sanctions didn’t work in South Africa, since most of the European and Asian nations continued selling to South Africa while the United States companies sold their businesses to South Africans at about 10 cent on the dollar. It is obvious from the massive stores of French, German, Russian and other nationality weapons found in Iraq by the American and British troops that sanctions didn’t work in Iraq either.
Besides, who, do you suppose, would enforce those sanctions against the United States and then provide “economic assistance” to us? Germany maybe? Russia? How about France? I doubt it.
I do not think all those University professors actually believe what they are saying. Surely they can’t be that stupid. I suspect, however, they think the rest of us non-university types ARE that stupid and will follow their lead to get rid of George W. Bush in 2004.
While some in my generation may actually follow the University professor peaceniks, I don’t think my grandchildren’s generation is that dumb. And, in 2004 more of my grandchildren and their peers will be voting age. Republican politicians, please take note.
To comment: mmostert@bannerofliberty.com