Education for ignorant war supporters



“O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.” - William Shakespeare, in “Measure for Measure”

“But ‘tis common proof that lowliness is young ambition’s ladder, whereto the climber-upward turns his face; but when he once attains the upmost round, he then unto the ladder turns his back, looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend.” - William Shakespeare, in “Julius Caesar”



President Bush and his supporters easily and readily point to Mr. Bush’s efforts to work with the U.N. in the failed attempt to obtain the second Resolution to 1441 for his war with Iraq. He eventually based his authority on previous U.N. resolutions that could have been argued against. But once he had certain proof about the utmost success in the military component of that war, he immediately turned his back on the U.N., whose resolutions were the justification for the war and scorns even the possibility of US involvement in the after war rebuilding phase of the new Iraq that is to emerge in the future. It is more than obvious now that the President was concerned more with “Regime Change” and the constitutional reshaping of Iraq than the removal of WMD to which U.N. Resolutions referred. Today, we read in the press that Syria also needs a regime change and on 04/20/03, the President told the world that Syria appears to be getting the message so it appears that he might be considering the use of his giant might like a “giant”.

It is interesting to listen to television hosts and guests explain how the U.N. failed the people of Iraq by failing to rubber stamp the US desire to wage war against Iraq. One would think that the U.N. is to be considered in the same manner as a state such as the US with the diplomatic right to use war or the threat of war as part of its diplomacy. Yet, as the world’s only super power and one of the five Security Council veto-holding nations, the US holds a major responsibility for the outcome of U.N. decisions. Thus the U.N.’s failure to pass the second resolution is also (and perhaps more so) a failure of the US to make its case and to engineer a successful diplomatic effort that would have won passage of the desired resolution

Arguments are now being made that it would be unfair to the people of Iraq to have the U.N. involved, significantly, in the reshaping of the new nation of Iraq. Yet many Iraqis want the U.N. to be involved and several states in the region including friends of the US such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are calling for U.N. involvement. Even some television hosts and lawmakers in the US are recognizing the need for U.N. responsibility for the reshaping of Iraq, but the President and his team insist that the vital role for the U.N., other than in the humanitarian area, is recognition of the US imposed temporary Administration team for Iraq and the establishment of legitimacy of its efforts to award contracts and to sell Iraq’s oil while the US shapes the future of Iraq, despite talking the public talk about Iraqi control, by directing the selection of its rulers.

Several things appear to be most curious about US policy and actions regarding Iraq’s current needs and the future needs of the Iraqi people. The US Congress virtually suspended the Constitution and gave the President “carte blanche” to go to war with Iraq with the one provision that he return to the Congress to demonstrate that he had expended every effort to find another solution. He declared war on national (international) T.V. even before he went back to the Congress. It appears very odd, that the interim administration in civil matters of state building not connected with safety, security and immediate living needs in Iraq is, apparently, being handled by the military arm of the US instead of the State Department and it appears as though it is being done at arms length from the Congress of the US.

Some of the more curious things revolve around the awarding of contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq’s infrastructure and civil society. Many times, we have listened to Brig. Gen. Brooks telling us about the need for assessments of the state of Iraq’s oil industry before start up could be talked about, yet we have contracts worth several billion US dollars already being awarded. Bechtel Corp has a general construction contract from the State Department worth $680 million, yet no survey of actual construction needs could have been carried out since the destruction is on going. How any company is able to bid on a contract of such magnitude without prior knowledge of the nature and locations of the construction effort and the specifications and other terms of the contract is indeed questionable. Halliburton (HAL) has a $7 billion emergency oil field repair contract from the Army even though the assessment of needs has not been completed. Washington Group International and another company from Farmington, MA have both received Army contracts of $100 million each for general contracting, and International resources Group of Washington DC has a $7 million contract from the State Department for personnel support, among several other contracts that have already been awarded. One wonders what would happen to these contracts if when the Iraqi people form their own administration they reject the plans made by the US!

Even the nature of awarding these contracts appear as fuzzy as the math that might have been used to determine the amounts of the contracts without certain knowledge of the amount of work required and the specifications of the work as decided by the hoped for independent government of Iraq that is being promoted and assured. Since Iraq is not a US state, but an independent nation, why should US federal government standards be imposed on the Iraqi people? Why is it that local contractors and contractors from other nations with experience in Iraq could only qualify for sub contract work when, as stated by a Halliburton spokesperson, it is determined that “the opportunity was a good business venture”.

Also on the curious side is the apparent blueprint for Iraq and the Middle East that Mr. Bush appears to be following. It appears to resemble one drawn up before 9/11 by PNAC. Shouldn’t the US Congress have some say in this matter? Shouldn’t the Congress have some say in the use of Iraqi funds that have been withheld previously? Why is the military side of the US responsible for rebuilding the state of Iraq instead of the State department? Why is a former military and weapons expert given the task of rebuilding Iraq while reporting to another military person. How democratic is the process when the US brings in the “darling” of the military, Iraqi dissident, Ahmed Chalabi and his small military force to work in the new Iraq. How is it that although many Iraqi people are pushing for their own Iraqi formed administration, Mr. Chalabi states that the new government of Iraq would not be a theocracy? What if a theocracy is what a majority of the people of Iraq desire?

I think it is the practice of democratic nations that they do not interfere in the constitutional affairs of independent nations. If the US government decides it should be involved in nation building, I believe that it is a matter that should be voted on by the electorate, at the time of a Presidential election where it would be part of the platform of the Party that is elected. If the decision to intervene in the affairs of other nations is in between elections, I would think that the Congress would have some responsibility for the decision (based on more recent happenings, perhaps even the Supreme Court might have to rule). Why is there no debate on these matters in Congress, and also, where is the Democratic Party while these things are occurring?

If Iraq is to be an independent nation, how could the US decide to retain four military bases in Iraq prior to a national government being installed and empowered to authorize US bases on their soil? Why is it that the oil to Syria is turned off, but nothing is done about oil shipped to Egypt and Jordan that, like Syria, is in defiance of U.N. imposed sanctions. How could the U.S. ask for removal of sanctions when the US insists that WMD are still there to be found in Iraq? Which Iraq government is in place to work with the U.N. on removal of sanctions and to administer sale of Iraq’s oil for food programs? Should there even be talk of sanctions now that Saddam’s regime is no longer in power?

There might yet be a strange and unintended consequence of this war that might note bode well for the US, Israel and the world. Already in Iraq, we see an effort to unite the different factions of the Islamic faith in Iraq. It could become a precursor of a uniting of all the different factions of the Islamic faith into one cohesive body that would work together for the imposition of Islamic practices and procedures throughout the world. This could produce a giant Islamic strength that we could, surely expect to be used in a giant or gigantic manner.

By: Calvin K. Preddie - 04/22/03