The Hyperion Chronicles

#97 War of Words (I)

I had been planning, for some time now, to write a series of columns on war: it’s history, planning, inner workings, aftermath, and philosophy. Pretty lofty goals, I know, but that’s what you get here at the Hyperion Chronicles: all loft, nothing soft (hmm; maybe that should have been today’s motto). Anyway, I realized last week that it would be a glaring omission to begin talking about war and not start with the potential war on everyone’s mind. And, folks, I’m not talking about Pepsi vs. Coke, Snuggle Bear vs. Porcupine, or even Britney vs. Justin; I’m talking about Iraq vs. the entire world (at least, all the countries who managed to get their permission slips in on time). I initially thought to cover both sides myself, but I realized I couldn’t authentically do that. So, I asked a good friend of mine, Kevin Teague, to help out. Kevin is a published author himself (way more than me), and last year he and his wife moved to Scotland, where I gather they get quite a different perspective than anything I hear back here in America. Kevin graciously agreed to supply the “con” side to war with Iraq, and I’ve written the “pro” side. To preserve integrity, we worked completely independently of each other. In fact, I won’t have even read his arguments until I send the whole thing out to people. That way there is no collusion, and just two people’s opinions, and you can read and see if they make any difference to what you think already. Below I have Kevin’s words, and in the next column (sent simultaneously) I have mine. I hope you all benefit from reading them, and as always, please feel free to write any and all responses. I’ll make sure he gets all the mail, good and bad (although please go easier on him than you do on me, you playground bullies). Enjoy the show.

Someone sent me a joke last week that read:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small

children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around

the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand

is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he

reaches you and your family. What do you do?

___________________________________________________________

Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!

Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that

is inspiring him to attack? What does the law say about this situation? Is it

possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill

me or would he just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and

hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so

confusing!

__________________________________________________________

Conservative Answer: BANG!

The joke is funny, but there really aren’t any dangerous men chasing America with knives. Don’t get me wrong. There are dangerous men out there. Just look in Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and most countries in the belly of Africa, but none are running after us.

So listen up, because for the first time in 100 years, America will launch the first offense of this up and coming war. However, I believe, just like most of the western world, that the war can be avoided. Just to realize how different the start of this war will be, let’s reflect on why the US involved itself in past wars:

WWI – Germany invaded France. US honored their alliance with France.

WWII – Japan bombed Pearl Harbor

Korean War – North Korea invaded South Korea

Vietnam War – North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam

Gulf War – Iraq invaded Kuwait

This War – Iraq has committed no violent act. America, for the first time ever, will be the initial attacker. So why is Bush bent on having a war when the rest of the world thinks it can be avoided? Well, the answer is buried somewhere in the events over the past four years.

January 1, 1999: Bush runs for office. In less than two years, he raises $180 million for his campaign. The largest donor was from Halliburton Co. (Petroleum developers), which gave Bush and Cheney $80 million. In case you forgot, Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO and Bush served as executive officer before they both ran for office. Then, after a little blushing in Palm Beach County, Bush’s presidential campaign was befuddled with ballot problems in Florida. On November 7, 2000, the state of Florida split 50-50 on who they wanted as president. The Supreme Court then ruled Bush into office. A few weeks later a warehouse in Palm Beach County found ‘tens of thousands’ of uncounted ballots. Whoops.

Until September 11, Bush spent 42% of his presidency either on vacation or en route between them. Bush did have time to open the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) for oil and gas drilling.

September 11, 2001. I don’t have to recap this for anybody. But it should be known that none of the hijackers were Iraqis or had financial connections to Saddam Hussein. Immediately after the attack the Taliban sought refuge in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Bin Laden was thought to be hiding in bunkers he dug under sand dunes in Afghanistan – not Iraq.

Bush declared, “War On Terrorism”. He then mobilized military, primarily the Special Forces, to station in Pakistan and work with Northern Alliance leaders to hunt down Taliban in Afghanistan. The US did kill Taliban soldiers, along with destroying weapons facilities, but we never killed any one in Osama Bin Laden’s ”Inner Circle” (Muhammad Atef, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Ayman al-Zawahiri, etc….) American and other UN troops continued to bomb sites the Northern Alliance told them were Taliban facilities. We accidentally killed a lot of innocent civilians and slaughtered an entire wedding ceremony in the process.

Another embarrassment: Mullah Akhter Mohammed Osmani, one of the top six Taliban generals, was captured in Kandahar, but accidentally released by US troops who misunderstood his identity. Whoops. But there’s good news! Sort of…. The CIA used missiles to assassinate a Taliban general in his Mercedes Limousine while he drove home. The kill, however, was technically an assassination, which violates UN policy on political assassination.

Some war specialists theorize Colin Powell was the wrong person to lead the hunt for Taliban. Why? He was lionized in the 90-91 Gulf War after mobilizing a massive offense of US troops against Iraq. This massive mobilization technique, Powell’s technique, didn’t work well in finding an enemy that hid in bunkers under sand dunes.

I say all this to make it clear Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for the bombing of the US Cole in Yemen and terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001, is still at large. Guess what? So is the dictator that Sr. George Bush failed to remove from power in 1991.

While all the chaos in Afghanistan took place, UN weapon inspectors were sent to Iraq to check Iraqi weapons facilities. Iraqis told the inspectors they’d let everyone inside to inspect except American UN inspectors. UN officials inspected the Iraqi weapons facility and found nothing. US inspectors still felt there were ‘unseen’ weapons Iraqi officials didn’t let UN inspectors see. UN inspectors asked to see the unseen weapons, but were told by Iraqis there were none. Colin Powell believed the unseen weapons were on a secret underground railroad that Saddam used to hide missiles.

Bush, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, and UK’s-Tony Blair then urged the UN to attack Iraq if they didn’t show inspectors the unseen biological and nuclear weapons. Iraq still said there were none. Iraq also said if they’re attacked, they would defend themselves (N. Korea has said the same thing). Colin Powell took this statement as a threat and urged the UN to support a war. Besides the United Kingdom, no other countries in the UN supported an attack on Iraq – especially France and Germany. Instead, they wanted more time for inspecting Iraq’s facilities. The UN felt there was a way to disassemble Iraqi weapons, wherever they were, but war should be a last resort. Iraq, as well, urged Powell to be patient and allow them more time for weapon inspection. Last week Iraq invited South Africa to consult them on the dangers of nuclear weapons.

Side note:

In an attempt to ‘stimulate the economy’, Bush passed a law to give tax reduction to owners of SUVs. He believed that because SUVs used more fuel than other cars, the business benefit of this tax cut to America’s petroleum industry would trickle down into other areas of the US’s suffering economy. This closely resembles Reagan’s ‘trickle down’ approach to economic growth.

In press conferences over the past 2 months, Bush has declared that Iraq poses a threat to the US because of their weapons arsenal, their violation of UN inspection laws (which Iraq agreed to in 1991), and Saddam’s cruelty to Iraqi nationals. But let’s deconstruct, shall we?

Iraq as a threat because of their weapons

After the US opened the nuclear age in the 1940’s, nuclear and biological weapons have been available to the entire world. There are 29 countries total with nuclear weapons. This doesn’t account for all the countries that bought weapons off the Soviets when the Iron Curtain fell. All sorts of nukes, including the infamous ‘suitcase warheads’, were sold to buyers that didn’t make the current list of 29. EVERYONE has weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq’s violation of UN inspection laws

This seems to be the most blaring Iraqi offense. But remember, two months ago the CIA assassinated a Taliban general in his car, which is also a UN offense. But let’s not focus on that. Iraq has clearly violated a weapons agreement they promised to uphold in 1991. We all know they’re stalling and lying about whatever weapons they have. Why keep out inspectors unless you’re hiding something? But the point of putting off war is that Iraq is beginning to cooperate with inspectors, which will begin the process of disassembling their arsenal. Powell, however, feels “enough is enough”, let’s have a war. The rest of the world feels there is a non-violent solution, which Iraq and the UN are working towards. The process is slow, but will avoid war and death to innocent human beings.

Imagine what would happen if Powell took a similar approach to the USSR during the Cold War? Imagine the nuclear holocaust if we held Soviets to their nuclear disarming agreements. Or what if they held us to ours? You wouldn’t be reading this right now.

Saddam’s cruelty to the Iraqi People

Come on. Does America still pretend to care about this? What about the genocide that took place in Rwanda/Uganda in the 1980s? What about the political unrest and genocide in Congo happening this very second? If a country has nothing to offer, we’re not going to help, especially when America’s administration is under the Right Wing. (Clinton, uncharacteristically showed charity towards the Bosnians) Bush and Blair have already divided up Iraqi’s oil resources after we remove Saddam from power. Wait a second…. I thought the oil belonged to the Iraqi people? You know, the one’s we’re trying to liberate from Saddam’s control??

So why are we really attacking Iraq? The entire world, except for Tony Blair and America, believe George Bush needs to payback the $100+ million given to him by oil companies for his presidential campaign. Once the US defeats Iraq, Iraqi oil resources will be divided up between the US and UK. Obviously this will help American oil industries become more independent and alleviate their reliance on OPEC. However, if the UN gets their way and deescalates the Iraqi weapon violation peacefully, Bush’s oil buddies don’t get a dime - and nobody dies.

So is Saddam running after our family with a knife? I thought it was Osama that killed thousands of Americans on Sept 11th? Didn’t he also bomb the US Cole and other heinous acts? Isn’t Osama from Saudi Arabia? Oh, that’s right, Powell can’t find him anywhere. So instead, lets got after a guy with 383,000 troops,… a guy who hasn’t attacked an American since 1991. And lets do it before all the flags and bumper stickers we put on our cars 17 months ago start to fade. Let’s kills somebody! Geesh! Saddam and Osama worship the same god, right, that Mohammad guy? That ought to count for something.

So back to the joke: A mad man chases my family down the street with a knife. Do I shoot him? Yep. But guess what? There’s no one running down the street after America. Besides a home video Osama (the bad guy) sent to Saddam and reports of an Iraqi spy that helped Mohammad Atta blow up the Radio Free building in Prague, the US cannot connect Iraq to the Sept 11th attacks. So why would George W want us to believe Iraq is our worst threat?

Here’s a clue. It’s three letters long and rhymes with the word “Toil.”

- - Kevin Teague

That’s the first half. Please read #98 for my side.

Happy Trails,

Hyperion and Kevin
February 19, 2003