Who controls the past controls the future.

Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell, 1984 Spring is here and things are looking up: war on Iraq is winding down, the U.S. liberated another oppressed people, and not too many U.S. soldiers have died in the process. With pictures of Iraqis cheering on the American troops, much scorn is now heaped on the anti-war movement.

After all, results matter, and the result in Iraq was a glowing military victory.

So what was the problem of the peaceniks? Liberation not in their name? So be it! Of course, there is a bit of a problem with weapons of mass destruction. Colin Powell is certain they will turn up, while Donald Rumsfeld is a bit skeptical. Everyone agrees, however, that finding such weapons would provide a clear justification for war.

And this is where thinking people should pause. Don’t wars have to be justified in advance, especially pre-emptive invasions? What kind of stone-age policy destroys a foreign country and afterward looks for justification? It’s like someone beating up his wife and then asking her if she was about to say something mean.

I do not remember debate over liberating Iraq.

I do not remember debate over democracy in the Middle East. All I remember is the relentless panic hype of the Bush administration and the media. I remember hearing ad nauseam about evil and terrible threats, about the death and destruction Saddam could visit upon the U.S., about “time running out” in the face of anthrax and biological weapons. I remember “It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known” (President Bush).

Now, after Bush has brought weeks of horror to the Iraqi people, with 2,000 civilians dead and countless more wounded or maimed, none of these threats has been verified. More than anything, the cakewalk into Baghdad seems proof of Iraq’s utter defenselessness. Of course, some weapons or evidence may still be found. Yet not even under deadly U.S. attack, with his political and personal demise closing in, did Hussein resort to using any such weapon. We can therefore guess what sort of a threat he really posed to Americans: crossing the street would have killed us sooner. This means two things:

A) Based on suspicion, the Bush administration pushed for war on another country. By the time bombing started, there was no proof of its justification.

B) From fear of Hussein, a majority of Americans gave their support. Whoever now points to happy Iraqis should ask himself how much they mattered two months ago — that is, when we seemed to have better reasons to go to war. Both suspicion and fear turned out to be baseless.

Which means that we invaded a country based on a false premise — an outrage that should be discussed all over the nation. Otherwise, we are hardly fit to bring democracy anywhere else.

I remember when, just after the war in Afghanistan, an invasion of Iraq was first floated in the media. I remember how absurd and pointless it seemed. Iraq had been off the radar for years, and not since the Gulf War had Hussein threatened the U.S. or anyone else. The CIA had cleared Iraq of suspicion regarding September 11, as well as any connection with al-Qaeda. No one thought much about Iraq and Hussein, including President Bush, who never mentioned him in his first year in office. In short, selling this war to the public seemed like the ultimate idiot test.

Then the fear machine set to work.

Systematically, over the next twelve months the government and the media scared the living daylights out of America. First, Vice President Cheney talked nuclear weapons. Then chemical and biological weapons entered the picture, including, of course, anthrax. All throughout, Bush and Rumsfeld made sure to milk 9-11, the open collective wound which could enlist support for nearly anything. No speech or interview where the president did not invoke the “horrors of that day” which should never be repeated.

The media, too, eagerly fanned the flames of hysteria. After years of not watching television, I was given a TV just two weeks before the war.

Within my first two days of news consumption, I twice saw footage of the Twin Towers burning — both times entirely out of context. Networks jumped at the chance to re-run the disaster, thus conditioning viewers by tapping into the trauma.

Due to the incessant repetition, an unconscious connection was established between Iraq and September 11: not by accident do many Americans now believe Hussein to be behind the attacks. Slowly but steadily, the “threat” was established and rationality sailed out the window.

Tracing the build-up for war reveals significant parallels. The Bush fear-mongering peaked in September 2002, both the anniversary of the attacks and the beginning of the mid-term election campaign. Delivering speeches full of nightmares and doom, Bush made war support grow and even gained Senate majority, avoiding any debate over social and economic issues. When protesters took to the streets, John Ashcroft raised the fear code to orange, counteracting major rallies immediately before they happened.

Finally, on March 15, in the last presidential radio address before the bombing started, Bush mentioned Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction at least five times, claiming that Hussein “sponsors terror.” Bush specified “mustard agent, botulinum toxin and sarin, capable of killing millions.” and stated the goal of the war as strictly defensive, to protect the U.S. from an imminent threat. Not even once did he mention the liberation of Iraq.

By contrast, two weeks into the war, in a radio address on April 5, Bush only once used the phrase “weapons of mass destruction,” but mentioned the “Iraqi people” seven times and “freedom” or “liberation” five times. The shift was obvious. With instantaneous historical revision the president had flipped the script, now selling the war as a fight for Iraqi freedom.

Amazingly, others made the jump with him, adopting the new government line. A recent Los Angeles Times survey found that 83 percent of American war supporters will still support military action even if no weapons of mass destruction are found.

So lingering rumours are true: Los Angelenos are meat-heads. If two months ago one had asked the same people if they supported a war solely to free Iraq, a majority would have said, “Why us, why now?” When it comes right down to it, few people really care about Iraqis, especially when the economy is in the toilet. Bush knew perfectly well that “liberating Iraq” wouldn’t fly with the public, so he trumped up the threat of Hussein. Of course, national security justifies any price tag, and so no one dared asking for the cost. Again, if Bush had asked to spend $100 billion to free a far-away people, most Americans would have politely declined. We have been duped by a warmonger.

In the U.S., remembering yesterday’s news has become a political act. First civic duty should be the collection of old papers, to keep track of the whims of policy. If you think happy Iraqis justify war, I recommend you study the past. In 1963, Hussein came to power with massive help of the CIA. Throughout the ‘80s, the U.S. armed him to the teeth when he was fighting Iran. In 1991, the U.S. initially gave Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait. After the first Gulf War, U.S. forces did not help a Kuwaiti uprising that could have toppled him — thousands of Kurds were killed with U.S. forces watching. Throughout the 90s, sanctions killed thousands of Iraqis, while Secretary of State Albright remarked on CNN, “We think the price is worth it.”

So what is up with the new-found concern for Iraqis? Ironically, most people who remember the past can be found in today’s anti-war movement. It is crucial to understand how this war came about, for we might soon have this discussion again. Already, new targets for “liberation” are considered, and new threats and suspicions emerge. Right after the invasion of Baghdad, Bush claimed that Syria too had chemical weapons.

Brooklyn Bridge, anyone?

The decision to go to war is the most serious a country can make. Never again must we allow this step to be based on fear and assumption.

Promote global peace.

Think and remember.

Chester

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2003 at 12:01 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.