Nothing Can Avert War In Iraq

To the Editor:

I do not wish to spoil Wanda Kokoszka’s day, but I fear that nothing can avert a war in Iraq. Not the UN, not NATO, certainly not Iraq. Zbigniew Brzezinski has said that “we [he means Bush] have given the impression that nothing that Iraq does will be enough to satisfy our demands.” The only problem I have with that statement is I think it is settled dogma not an impression. Iraq sent the UN a report on its weapons programs. The US hijacked the report, cut it to one third of its original length and handed the censored version back to the UN declaring it incomplete. Iraq has begun destroying missiles. Powell says that they have limited the number that they will destroy. Well obviously they will not continue to destroy them after they are attacked. Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld have scorned the inspectors’ efforts. Rumsfeld says that the inspectors do not have access to the underground tunnels where Iraq is storing their weapons. These tunnels appear to be a figment of his imagination so he is the only person who does have access. He has not given the coordinates of the tunnel entrances. That would probably require a brain scan. Powell says “we are still confident that they [Iraq] are moving things around.” Notice that he does not say “we know.” Why do they not give the inspectors the information? Oh yes –– they cannot reveal their sources.

They tried, but failed, to establish a link between Hussein and 9/11. Powell claimed that the recent statement from bin Laden proved a link. In that statement bin Laden called Hussein a “socialist infidel.” Now I would take that as a compliment but it is clearly not intended as such. Bin Laden claimed solidarity with the Iraqi people not their government. Bush and Powell have said the same thing, so if any link has been established it is between Bush/Powell and bin Laden.

The US and Britain are nominally allies in this push to war, but notice that they have completely different agendas. Straw has stated that Britain wants to remove any weapons of mass destruction but would be satisfied to leave Hussein in power. From the outset Bush has talked of “regime change” and with a sidestep here and there to try to garner international support this has remained his goal.

Brzezinski is right. No matter how many documents Iraq produces, Bush will demand more, no matter how many weapons are destroyed, he will claim that they are hiding still more, no matter how many scientists are interviewed, he will claim that they are being controlled. If Hussein were to leave the country, Bush would call it a ruse and the attack would go forward.

There are many evil people in the world and I have no difficulty believing that Hussein is one of them. That he is the worst and presents the greatest and most immediate threat is highly questionable. The latest ultimatum is the ultimate affront to our intelligence. Requiring that Iraq “demonstrate, on or before March 17, full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation” is not a measurable goal. But of course Bush does not want any objective measurement. He wants to be able to claim that they have not met the requirements of which he is the sole judge and jury.

Brian Gibney

10 Checkerberry Lane, Sandy Hook                         March 11, 2003