Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: David Krieger

Fueling the Nuclear Fire: Nuclear Policies of the Bush Administration

The George W. Bush administration came into office with the clear intention to strengthen US global military dominance, including its nuclear dominance, and it has been true to this major policy goal. Under this administration, military expenditures have increased by some $100 billion to approximately $400 billion annually, and nuclear weapons have assumed a far more central role in US security policy.

The administration’s blatant disregard for the United Nations Security Council and for long-standing arms control and disarmament efforts are clear signs that it is prepared to chart a unilateral course with regard to security issues. The US has signaled its desire to overhaul its nuclear arsenal by developing smaller and more usable nuclear weapons, which could be used as part of the new “Bush doctrine” of preemption. The administration has developed contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven other countries and against weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles of what it considers to be “rogue” states.

In its dramatic shift towards increasingly aggressive nuclear and military policies, the Bush administration has opened a new era of increased likelihood of US nuclear weapons use. In turn, the administration has provoked the initiation of a new nuclear arms race as other states attempt to develop or increase their nuclear arsenals to counter-balance US military dominance and the threat of US willingness to employ the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare.
Bush Policy Goals

Nuclear “Reduction”
As a candidate for president in 2000, Mr. Bush announced that he wanted to reduce the level of strategic nuclear weapons in the US arsenal to the lowest number compatible with US security. Based on military studies, that number was placed at between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed strategic nuclear weapons. According to the Nuclear Posture Review, a classified document released to Congress on December 31, 2001, “Based on current projections, an operationally deployed force of 1700-2200 strategic nuclear warheads by 2012…will support US deterrence policy to hold at risk what opponents value, including their instruments of political control and military power, and to deny opponents their war aims.”

This “reduction” of deployed warheads will be accomplished by transferring warheads from active delivery vehicles to either a “responsive force” or to “inactive reserve.” This should be seen more as a de-alerting measure rather than a disarmament measure, as nuclear weapons are merely shifted to non-deployed status and not dismantled.

Missile Defense
While campaigning, Bush also promoted the development and deployment of a National Missile Defense to protect the United States against nuclear attacks by so-called rogue states, a proposal that would have been prohibited under the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Upon assuming the presidency, Bush dealt with the impediment of the ABM Treaty by withdrawing from it. He gave the six months notice required by the Treaty for withdrawal on December 13, 2001, and US withdrawal became effective on June 13, 2002. Since then, Bush had announced plans to deploy the first twenty interceptor missiles in Alaska and California by 2004.
The US Nuclear Posture Review

The clearest indication of a shift of US nuclear policy can be found in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), marking a major change in the US nuclear strategy beyond the Cold War doctrines of deterrence. This document lays out a “New Triad,” composed of offensive strike systems (nuclear and non-nuclear), defenses (active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure (providing new capabilities) to meet emerging threats.

The Review states, “Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets [that are] important to achieve strategic and political objectives.” This is an extraordinary assertion of the benefits that US leaders attribute to nuclear weapons in US defense policy, benefits that they are clearly reserving for themselves and a small group of other nuclear weapons states while seeking to deny them to other nations. Salient points of the report are summarized below:

Nuclear strikes against WMD
In proposing the use of nuclear weapons to deter against WMD, the NPR embraces the option of using nuclear weapons not only against countries with nuclear weapons but also those in possession of chemical and biological weapons. The document states, “U.S. nuclear forces will continue to provide assurance to security partners, particularly in the presence of known or suspected threats of nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks or in the event of surprising military developments.”

New nuclear capabilities
The report makes a discernible move towards making nuclear weapons “usable” on the battleground. The NPR talks of credible nuclear policies “over the coming decades” that include “new generations of weapon systems.” These have been conceived as “low-yield deep earth penetration nuclear weapons,” popularly described as “bunker-busters”, to defeat hard and deeply buried targets such as underground bunkers and bio-weapon facilities, and “mini-nukes” (with yields less than 5 kilotons). These are weapons that proponents believe will cause limited civilian casualties and collateral damage, and opponents view as making nuclear weapons more usable and more likely to be used. The Bush administration is seeking $70 million to advance these nuclear weapons programs.

Shortening nuclear test readiness
The report calls for strengthening the “U.S. Nuclear Warhead Infrastructure.” It states, “The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will: …be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground nuclear testing if required.”

Consequently, the Bush administration has sought funds to “enhance” test readiness and shorten the time required to prepare for the resumption of full-scale test explosions – decreasing the current time from 24-36 months to approximately 18 months.

Contingency plans
The report further calls for development of contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, Russia and China. As five of these countries are non-nuclear weapons states, the US threat to use nuclear weapons against them violates the negative security assurances that it gave to the non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the time of that NPT’s Review and Extension Conference in 1995.

In sum, the Bush administration’s Nuclear Posture Review is a strategy for indefinite reliance on nuclear weapons with plans to improve the capabilities of the existing arsenal and to revitalize the infrastructure for improving US nuclear forces in the future. The NPR promotes an expanded nuclear strategy as opposed to measures for irreversible nuclear disarmament as agreed to at the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference.
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

In May 2002, President Bush reached an agreement with President Putin on a Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT). In the treaty, the two governments agreed to reduce the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons on each side to Bush’s preferred numbers, as set forth in the US NPR, of between 1,700 and 2,200 by the year 2012. The treaty made no provisions for interim reductions, and thus, despite SORT, it remains possible for either or both sides to actually increase the size of their arsenal between the inception of the treaty and 2012, so long as the reductions to the agreed numbers are accomplished by 2012. The treaty, however, does not provide verification measures to assure that the reductions are made. The treaty is also set to terminate, unless extended, in 2012.

Furthermore, the treaty has no provisions for the nuclear warheads to be removed from active deployment. The US has announced its intentions to put many or most of these warheads into storage in “reserve” status, where they will remain available to be reintroduced to active deployment should this decision be taken in the future. Russia is likely to follow the US approach, and the treaty may exacerbate a new threat of theft and transfer of nuclear weapons and materials from Russia to other nations or terrorist groups

SORT was announced with considerable fanfare. It gave the public a sense of progress toward nuclear disarmament, when in fact it was far more of a public relations effort than an actual arms reduction treaty. Although it did provide for removing several thousand nuclear weapons on both sides from deployment, and in this sense it was a de-alerting measure, it did not make these reductions irreversible (i.e., by dismantlement) or accountable to verification as agreed to by the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.

US National Security Strategy

In September 2002, the Bush administration released a document entitled “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.” In a letter introducing the document, Mr. Bush stated, “The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination. The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed…. [A]s a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.” [Emphasis added.]

This statement underlined Mr. Bush’s intention and willingness to engage in preemptive war, including the possibility of a nuclear first strike. A few months earlier, on June 1, 2002, when Mr. Bush spoke at the graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy, he introduced the idea of preemptive war by stating, “[O]ur security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.”
US Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction

In December 2002, the Bush administration released a new document, entitled “National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.” The document recognized the dangers of the “massive harm” that weapons of mass destruction could inflict upon the United States, its military forces, and its friends and allies. “We will not permit,” it stated, “the world’s most dangerous regimes and terrorists to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.”

The document is premised on the administration’s strategy for the US to possess and possibly use nuclear weapons, while denying, preventing, and responding to the possession and possible use of weapons of mass destruction by other countries or terrorists.

In setting forth its plan to retaliate with a nuclear strike in response to a nuclear, biological and chemical weapon attack, the document stated clearly that the US would counter such weapons with “overwhelming force – including through resort to all of our options.” The Washington Times reported on January 31, 2003 that the classified version of the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, signed by President Bush in September 2002, stated the issue in this way: “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” [Emphasis added.]

In vowing that the US will seek capabilities enabling it to “detect and destroy an adversary’s WMD assets before these weapons are used,” the strategy boldly forewarns states seeking WMD that the US could strike first.

Failure to Lead toward Nuclear Disarmament

In sum, Bush’s aggressive nuclear policy has shown scant concern for US treaty obligations, rendering many international arms control measures meaningless.

• Most prominently, the Bush administration has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty to pursue missile defenses and test space-based weapons.
• The Bush administration is not taking seriously, nor attempting to fulfill, US obligations for nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT, nor has it shown good faith in fulfilling the 2000 NPT Review Conference’s 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament – including pursuing the promised “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear weapons states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals….”
• Washington has made clear that it does not intend to send the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) back to the Senate for ratification. The Bush administration has indicated plans to shorten the time needed to resume underground nuclear testing, and is developing more usable nuclear weapons and contingency plans for their use.

Current nuclear policies by the Bush administration must be viewed as highly provocative to other countries. They suggest that the US reserves to itself the right to use its own weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, as it deems appropriate, while, at the same time, seeking to deny that possibility to other countries.

Early in his presidency, Mr. Bush labeled Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “Axis of Evil.” Based upon his doctrine of preemption, Mr. Bush has already led the US to wage a preventive war on Iraq without sanction by the United Nations. The other two countries singled out by Mr. Bush have not been unresponsive to the aggressiveness of the Bush administration. In January 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and announced that it is reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to develop a nuclear arsenal. Iran, which is still a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has attracted international suspicion in recent months due to its ambitious plans to extend its nuclear facilities, showing signs of moving forward with developing its own nuclear arsenal. In both cases, US policies and provocations have helped drive the reactions.

The Bush administration, by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty and proceeding with deployment of regional and national missile defenses, has provoked China to further develop its offensive nuclear arsenal in order to maintain a minimally effective deterrent force. China’s plans to further its nuclear program may in turn spark further developments in the South Asia nuclear impasse.

Under the military and nuclear policies of the Bush administration, the United States is leading the world into an even more dangerous era, with the effect of pouring fuel on the nuclear fire. Current Bush administration nuclear policies pose an enormous threat to US and global security. These policies must be reversed and brought into line with US obligations to international non-proliferation and disarmament agreements. Since the Bush administration is unlikely to initiate such change, the challenge to reverse these policies and bring the US into compliance with international commitments lies with the US public and the international community.
–David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). His recent books include Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age (Middleway Press, 2002) and Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).

August 19, 2003
Sadako Peace Day 2003

Welcome to our 9th annual Sadako Peace Day on the occasion of the 58th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

In this beautiful garden, named for a young girl, Sadako Sasaki, who died as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima, we remember Sadako and all innocent victims of war. These children all have names. Their lives, as all lives, were precious. They were not meant to be collateral damage or statistics of war. All war kills, and no war spares the innocent, nuclear war least of all.

It matters that we remember these victims and these historical events. It also matters how we remember. We live in a culture where victory is celebrated, but victory by means of nuclear devastation is no cause for celebration. It is cause for sober reflection on our past so that we may not intentionally or inadvertently destroy our future, nor the future of our children and of those yet unborn.

Nuclear weapons have given us new responsibilities. The Nuclear Age, now 58 years old, requires us to accept personal responsibility for preserving our species and all life from the utter devastation that we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the result of using nuclear weapons.

Today we remember the hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose prayer is fervent: “Never Again! We must not repeat the evil.”

We remember also that hibakusha do not just happen.
It is our job to break the silence, to speak up for the sanity of eliminating nuclear weapons, to urge our country to be a leader in this effort, rather than an obstacle. It is significant challenge, one that each of us is called upon to accept for the good of all and for all that is good.

Hibakusha
Do Not Just Happen
by David Krieger

For every hibakusha
there is a pilot

for every hibakusha
there is a planner

for every hibakusha
there is a bombardier

for every hibakusha
there is a bomb designer

for every hibakusha
there is a missile maker

for every hibakusha
there is a missileer

for every hibakusha
there is a targeter

for every hibakusha
there is a commander

for every hibakusha
there is a button pusher

for every hibakusha
many must contribute

for every hibakusha
many must obey

for every hibakusha
many must be silent

*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). This is an edited version of his welcoming remarks at the 9th annual Sadako Peace Day, held in Santa Barbara on August 6, 2003.

August 6, 2003
A Time For Questions

These are times in which there are many more questions than answers, and many Americans are beginning to form and articulate these questions. Some of the questions on my mind are the following:

1. If the president gives false information to the American people about the reasons for going to war, should he be held to account?

2. If the United Nations Security Council does not authorize a preemptive war, can any country proceed to war or is this the sole prerogative of the US government?

3. If a country proceeds to war without UN authorization, is this “aggressive warfare,” the type of warfare for which German and Japanese leaders were punished after World War II?

4. When the North Korean government repeatedly states that the nuclear crisis can be defused if the US will negotiate a mutual security pact with them, why is the current US administration dragging its feet in proceeding to enter into negotiations?

5. Does the United States have a responsibility to participate with UN forces in restoring security to civilians in civil wars, such as that in Liberia?

6. Should American troops stationed in Iraq have the right to complain about the policies of civilian leaders responsible for our policy there?

7. With half its combat forces in Iraq, is the US military stretched so thin that it cannot adequately protect Americans at home or participate in needed UN peacekeeping operations abroad?

8. With the war in Iraq costing American taxpayers nearly $4 billion per month and the US deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year, was it wise to pass large tax cuts for the richest Americans?

9. Is the desire to control Iraq’s oil the reason that the US hasn’t asked the United Nations for help in providing peacekeeping in Iraq?

10. What is the relationship of companies such as Halliburton, Bechtel and the Carlyle Group, which are profiting from the war in Iraq, to members of the current US administration?

11. Are Americans safer to travel throughout the world after the Iraq War?

12. Has the credibility of the United States throughout the world increased or decreased in the aftermath of the Iraq War?

13. What is the current status of respect for the United States throughout the world?

14. Why has the current US administration been hostile to the creation of an International Criminal Court to hold individual leaders accountable for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity?

15. Is war an effective way to make peace?

It is time to start demanding answers from our government to these questions and many more, and their answers should not be given only in secrecy behind closed doors. Questions about war and peace are far too important to be left only to politicians and generals without the voice of the people. It is time for an ongoing public dialogue that includes answers to questions from the public. If democracy is to have meaning, the people have a right to know and they deserve to have their questions answered.

–David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003)..

Readers’ Comments
If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
(Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

Thanks for your message and the 15 questions each human being should be trying to answer today. More and more people actually are asking themselves these questions, so humanity’s slim chances for survival are increasing a little every day!

– Olivier, Japan

July 23, 2003
The Big Lie

Bush administration officials, including the president, repeatedly told the American people that war against Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein was lying about not having weapons of mass destruction. We were told that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but that they were an imminent threat to the United States. We were told that our government knew where those weapons of mass destruction were located. Now, after yet another brutal war in which thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and numerous young soldiers on both sides were killed, maimed and traumatized, the Bush Administration can produce no evidence that Saddam Hussein had the weapons of mass destruction.

Prior to the war, the Bush administration offered detailed descriptions of Iraq’s weapons programs, including the claims famously made by Colin Powell before the UN Security Council. Bush administration claims included assertions that Iraq had a program for enriching uranium, that it had weaponized thousands of liters of biological weapons, including anthrax and botulism, and that Iraq could launch these weapons on very short notice.

Prior to the war, when Saddam Hussein opened his palaces to UN inspectors, destroyed missiles with ranges barely longer than UN restrictions and allowed the US to send U-2 spy planes over Iraq, the Bush Administration said it was too little, too late.

Prior to the war, when the Chief UN Weapons Inspector, Hans Blix, said that the inspectors were receiving increased cooperation from the Iraqis and pleaded for more time to continue their work, George Bush said he was growing impatient.

Prior to the war, when members of the Security Council of the United Nations said they were not ready to support the use of force against Iraq, George Bush demonstrated his disdain for international law and the Security Council of the United Nations by launching a preventive war against Iraq.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction after the war is causing widespread skepticism throughout the world about the justification for going to war. It has become a major political scandal in the UK, where prior to the war Tony Blair echoed the Bush administration’s claims of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction.

In the UK, Robin Cook, who resigned in protest from Tony Blair’s cabinet over the war in Iraq, has written: “Britain was conned into a war to disarm a phantom threat in which not even our major ally really believed. The truth is that the US chose to attack Iraq not because it posed a threat, but because they knew it was weak and expected its military to collapse. It is a truth that leaves the British government in an uncomfortable position.”

It is a truth that also leaves the American people in an uncomfortable position. It would seem that we were also “conned into a war” by Mr. Bush and his administration.

In a war that was sold to the American people and the Congress on the basis of misrepresentations by the Bush administration, more than 170 American soldiers were killed, more than 5,000 innocent civilians lost their lives, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers were slaughtered.

In the aftermath of the war, US soldiers continue to be targets of Iraqi dissatisfaction. Eleven US soldiers were killed in the past week. Iraq remains a dangerous place, but not because of weapons of mass destruction.

When the US and British forces invaded Iraq, one might have expected Saddam Hussein to use weapons of mass destruction if he had them. Rather, the Bush administration would have us believe that Saddam Hussein, while preparing for the US invasion or during the US attack, was busy destroying his weapons of mass destruction or moving them into another country.

Rather than show any contrition for leading the American people into war under false pretenses, President Bush has claimed that weapons of mass destruction have been found. He makes this claim on the basis of the discovery of two mobile laboratories, argued by some to be meant for making biological weapons, but which contain no evidence, according to the CIA, that weapons were actually made.

Far more honest is Lt. General James Conway, the commander of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, who stated to reporters, “It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal areas. Believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there.”

Also more honest, but unapologetic, is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who said in an interview after the war with Vanity Fair, “The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason….”

The US Congress owes the American people a thorough investigation of the “credibility gap” between the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a pretext for war and the failure to locate these weapons in the aftermath of the war. These claims cannot be dismissed, as some members of Congress would do, as simple exaggerations. They appear to be serious misrepresentations to the American people and the people of the world.

The Bush administration has much to account for regarding its highly publicized claims prior to the war that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. While it is appropriate to acknowledge the tyrannical nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime, concern for the human rights of the Iraqi people was not the justification of the Bush administration for initiating a preventive war. Their justification, stated repeatedly, was the imminent threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and it was on this basis that the Bush administration defied international law and the Security Council of the United Nations.

The buck stops with Mr. Bush. Lying about the reasons for war and misleading the American people into supporting a war has the look and feel of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” for which the Constitution provides impeachment as the remedy.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).
Readers Comments

If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
(Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

I have been waiting for some time for Georgie to plant weapons to be brilliantly discovered by crack teams of weapons discoverers who are paid large salaries to discover planted weapons…like a pathetic sitcom…which they all are….Here is a statistic I will share, that I learned while being interrupted from this email…amongst other human statistics…a women just told me, autism is of epidemic proportions is the states…I wonder if this is due to such a peaceful, humane, friendly environment we grown up in…where everyone loves everyone…there is no ruthless competition, everyone is honest and says nice things to hear….teenage suicide is on the increase again…teenage pregnancies, sexually transmitted disorders among teenagers…..

-Joseph, Maine, USA
I agree. I truly believe that we should all focus on Ramsey Clark’s VoteToImpeach.org

No one seems to be talking about this anymore. But impeachment really is the only solution to saving our planet. THe onslaught of daily attacks on the fabric of our society is overwhelming. If we unite we can impeach this Administration. It’s our only chance.

– Bob, USA
I suspect that the Bush administration, which says the WMD “WILL BE FOUND” is going to plant them. How about an article that tells people that ANY WMD found WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF UN INSPECTORS will not be considered a valid find? The US will do anything to protect itself, planting a few fake weapons is easy, getting a few Iraqi’s to lie about it is easy, fooling everybody is easy. So actually for you to make such a big deal out of whether we find WMD could be playing right into Bush’s hand, and instead of turning up the heat you set the stage for yet another bogus offering by this corrupt administration. I would love to see an article preparing people for the ‘discovery’ of PLANTED WMD and telling the world to accept NO CLAIMS OF WMD that are not witnessed by the UN IMMEDIATELY WITH NO TAMPERING by anybody.

– Mike, USA

June 6, 2003
Economic Justice for All

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

These revolutionary words from the Declaration of Independence are worth reflecting upon in light of the current struggle for economic justice in America. The government of the United States, the richest and most powerful country in the world, is perpetuating economic injustice within the United States and throughout the world. While the government seems to have unlimited funds for missiles and munitions, it is failing to provide health care, housing or education for large segments of the US population.

Millions of Americans, including working Americans, live below the poverty line. There are more than 40 million Americans without health insurance with little or no access to basic medical care. There are tens of millions of Americans without homes, and home ownership is becoming an impossible dream for most young Americans. The possibilities of a college education are also receding for young Americans, as the funds provided for education diminish. The truth is that we have no economic justice in this country and the situation is growing rapidly worse under the Bush administration.

State budgets are running in the red, and that means that their services to the people are diminishing. In 2002, states cut $49 billion in health care, welfare benefits, education and other public services. They plan to cut another $25.7 billion in 2003. State budget cuts this year and last year will be nearly equivalent to the initial amounts requested by Mr. Bush and allocated by Congress for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Rather than help the states in meeting their budgets, and thereby support the American people, Mr. Bush has squandered our federal funds on an illegal foreign war.

In spite of these shortfalls, Mr. Bush pressed for tax cuts of over $700 billion over a ten year period, tax relief that would go largely to the wealthiest Americans. Congress ended up passing tax cuts of $330 billion, less than half of the Bush request. While some $20 billion will go back to the states, the bulk of the relief will benefit the very rich, including Mr. Bush and many in his cabinet. Most Americans will receive a few hundred dollars or less, and the poorest Americans will receive nothing or next to nothing. By contrast, the richest Americans will receive tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax relief.

This means that those at the top of the economic pyramid will have more money to contribute to the candidates of their choice, who in turn will help them to get a larger share of the economic pie. The rest of us predictably will get a smaller share of the pie, and there are far more of us to compete for these leftovers.

In America, if you are rich, it is very likely that the president and the Congress will be working for your interests, by providing tax cuts and other benefits. If you are poor, who will be representing you in our democracy? It is not likely to be the present incumbent of the White House. Nor is it likely to be your member of Congress, when many in Congress are indebted to corporate interests.

If you are poor and not well educated in America, you may be able to work for minimum wage. That will probably be enough to keep you struggling below the poverty line, particularly if you have children, and your children will be forced to join you in poverty. Further, if these children do not receive a decent education, the cycle will go on and will likely be perpetuated to their children.

If you are poor in America and you are young, you may be able to join the military. We couldn’t have a voluntary military without high levels of poverty. And without a voluntary military, we couldn’t have perpetual wars because then the politicians and their financial supporters would have to send their own sons and daughters to fight. They wouldn’t be any more likely to do this than they would be to volunteer to go themselves to fight. They far prefer to send your sons and daughters to kill and die in foreign lands. In actuality, only one member of Congress had a child fighting in Iraq.

The war against Iraq is likely to cost the American taxpayer at least $100 billion and possibly much more. Those who profit will certainly include the Defense Contractors, those who provide the munitions and other material expended in the war. Other profiteers from the war will be those contracted to rebuild what we have destroyed in Iraq and, of course, the multinational oil companies.

Corporate names such as Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s old company, and Bechtel will be among the winners from this war. Lockheed Martin, Ratheon, the Carlyle Group and other giant defense contractors will undoubtedly also be among the winners. The poor and middle class in America, as well as the people of Iraq, will be among the losers.

We are now spending some $400 billion a year on our military forces, not including the special expenditures for the war in Iraq. This is approximately one-half of the money that Congress has discretion to allocate each year. The money that goes to the military cannot go to social programs that would lead to economic justice in our country. Money that goes to the military cannot even defend America as 9/11 demonstrated so dramatically.

Four hundred billion dollars a year on the military is over $1.1 billion dollars a day. It works out to $45.5 million per hour, $761,000 per minute. Imagine all of the important social programs that will go unfunded or underfunded to pay that $400 billion per year for a military that cannot defend us.

Some 500 billionaires on this planet, mostly Americans, have the equivalent assets of half of the world’s population. Three billion people on our planet live on less that $2 per day. More than one billion people live on less than $1 dollar per day. Over a billion people lack access to clean water, and over 2.5 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. Millions of people die annually throughout the developing world due to water-borne diseases and inadequate sanitation.

On our planet over one billion people are illiterate, and some 100 million children are denied access to primary education. For a small portion of what the US government spends on its military, it could be saving lives and building friendships by humanitarian assistance in food, health care, education and sanitation.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has called for battling against poverty in the war against terrorism. “We have to go after poverty,” he said. “We have to go after despair. We have to go after hopelessness.”

Of course, Secretary Powell is right about this, but it isn’t what our country has done historically, and Powell’s clarion call will not likely be heard in the White House. The US remains last among industrialized countries in the amount of its gross domestic product that it allocates for international development at 0.11 percent. The US is spending more on its plans to research, develop and deploy missile defenses ($7.8 billion) than it for its international humanitarian and development assistance ($7.6 billion). We are not seriously “going after poverty,” as Mr. Powell advised, but rather going after bombs, wars and missile shields.

Our failure to make a serious effort to stem poverty and injustice in the world is leading to resentment, anger and aggression toward America and innocent Americans. Pumping large amounts of money into the military is not an answer to these problems and makes the situation even less secure for the average American. We need to change our policies both at home and abroad to bolster economic and social justice. We need to fund bread rather than bombs.

If we want economic justice in America, we are going to have to change our direction. We are going to have to share the resources of the country with its people, not only the wealthy few, and also be more generous abroad. The United States is not meant to be a country “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.” It is a country, we are taught, “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We are the People and, for the good of ourselves and the world, we had better reclaim our country and reallocate our resources.

This means a far greater involvement of the people in our democratic processes. It means throwing out the politicians of both political parties who serve the interests of the corporations over the interests of the People. It means reallocating resources away from the militarization of America toward meeting the social needs of the poorest among us and allowing all Americans to live a better life.

The American dream is being squandered by a small group of extremist ideologues who are both greedy and myopic. Let us reclaim our land from these extremists. Let us strive to be a great country because we care for each other, particularly the least among us, and for the world in which we live. The implications of restoring economic justice are profound. They lie at the heart of environmental devastation of our planet and the suffering of large portions of humanity. Economic justice may prove to be a far more important factor in quelling terrorism than military force.

We can begin by empowering ourselves to bring about the changes necessary to achieve economic justice in our country and in the world. We can start by speaking out and urging our members of Congress to oppose tax cuts and instead allocate this money to support health care, housing and education. Let us also urge our members of Congress to vote to cut back on obscene military expenditures and transfer these funds instead to meeting human needs, in the United States and throughout the world. The next step should be to work through the electoral process to replace those political leaders who remain indebted to corporate interests and committed to the militarization of America. By taking these steps, by our engagement, we can move toward restoring dignity and economic justice at home and abroad.
* David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the co-author of Choose Hope, and the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future.
Readers Comments

If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
(Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

America needs to seperate itself from the imperilist Corporate giants who drive the economy and our government.I think the first thing we could do is start to elect officials that are not so easily corrupted and lust after money,I think the first Question that should be asked any new candidate for any political office should be “Do you wish to partake in or put a stop to the plunder of the American People?”We need men who are strong willed and moraly driven not profit driven if we abide by Gods law we will prosper without manipulating markets and enslaving poor third world economys with high interest loans taken under deress and with conditions that are impossible to meet That would be the Imf and its buisness practices.

–Stephen, USA

Timely comments. In my opinion the current Bush tax cut proposal amounts to a radical departure from sound principles not only of economic justice but also of fiscal management — aided and abetted by what Alan Greenspan refers to as “the deafening silence” of Congress. This proposal is merely the latest in a series of measures thinly disguised as economic stimulants but cynically calculated to divide our society further into two economic spheres and to consolidate political power in the hands of the wealthy few. As you suggest, this plutocratic system (let’s not call it “democracy”) builds upon itself — as money influences our political processes, the moneyed interests are able to expand their control over those processes and eventually come to dominate all policy. Having consolidated their control and governed in their own interests, they then denounce any dissenters as fomenters of “class division.” The question is, how may we free our politics from the grip of money and thus approach “Democracy in America?”

—Rob, USA

May 23, 2003
Ten Lessons of the Iraq War

There are always lessons to be learned after a war. Often governments and pundits focus only on lessons having to do with military strategies and tactics, such as troop deployments, engagement in battles, bombing targets and the effectiveness of different weapons systems. There are, of course, far bigger lessons to be learned, and here are some of the principal ones from the Iraq War.

1. In the eyes of the Bush administration, the relevance of international organizations such as the United Nations depends primarily upon their willingness to rubberstamp US policy, legal or illegal, moral or immoral.

2. The Bush Doctrine of Preemptive War may be employed against threats that have no basis in fact.

3. The American people appear to take little notice of the “bait and switch” tactic of initiating a war to prevent use of weapons of mass destruction and then celebrating regime change when no such weapons are found.

4. A country that spends $400 billion a year on its military, providing them with the latest in high-tech weaponry, can achieve clear military victory over a country that spends 1/400th of that amount and possesses virtually no high-tech weaponry.

5. Embedding journalists with troops leads to reporters providing only perspectives sanctioned by the military in their reports to the public. It is analogous to the imprinting of ducklings.

6. The American people can be easily manipulated, with the help of both embedded and non-embedded media, to support an illegal war.

7. An imperial presidency does not require Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority to declare war; it requires only a compliant Congress to provide increasingly large sums of money for foreign wars.

8. It is far easier to destroy a dictatorial regime by military might than it is to rebuild a country as a functioning democracy.

9. If other countries wish to avoid the fate of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, they better develop strong arsenals of weapons of mass destruction for protection against potential US aggression.

10. In all wars it is the innocent who suffer most. Thus, Saddam Hussein remains unaccounted for and George Bush stages a jet flight to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, while Ali Ismaeel Abbas lies in a hospital bed without his parents and brother, who were killed in a US attack, and without his arms.

The most important lessons of the Iraq War may be as yet unrevealed, but there is a sense that American unilateralism is likely to continue to alienate important allies, while the triumphalism of the Bush administration is likely to taunt terrorists, making them more numerous and tenacious in their commitment to violent retaliation.
*David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).
Readers Comments

If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at: letters@napf.org
(Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

I must however caution you on any suggestion that Iraq didn’t have WMD. I’m 100% confident they will eventually be found….even if they have to be planted by US special opps. Personally, from all I’ve read and followed prior to 9-11 and Iraq war I have no doubt that Saddam was developing biological weapons throughout the 90’s. When you suggest Iraq didn’t or doesn’t have them you risk losing credibility. You got too many other important and accurate points to make. I’d hate to think others will discredit you or your ideas because of one factual error.

Chuck, Washingotn DC

Author’s Reply: I appreciate your comments and concern. The administration did seem fairly certain before the war that they could identify where the weapons were, which has proven to be bogus. If the US were to plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq I don’t think that should be discrediting. Best regards. David
——————————————————————————–

I think there will be an 11th lesson: that in an era of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of non-governmental militias like al Qaeda and many others, there is no deterence nor is there any defense against them without addressing them respectfully to negotiate a cease-fire, like the UK did with the IRA. To learn this lesson, I fear the U.S. public will require losses orders of magnitude larger than 9-11 . . . likely what Japan or Germany had to endure during WWII . . . unless there is another way for the public to learn that we just increased, in the attack on Iraq, the likelihood of nuclear/radiological attacks against U.S. cities. Any ideas? (I’m looking but don’t know any.)

Kelly, USA
——————————————————————————–

I found your Ten Lessons of the War quite apt. However, I think item #4 is a bit ambiguous. The experience of the Vietnam war suggests that while it is true, as you write, that “a country that spends $400 billion a year on its military, providing them with the latest in high-tech weaponry, CAN achieve clear military victory over a country that spends 1/400th of that amount and possesses virtually no high-tech weaponry,” victory is not necessarily a foregone conclusion!

Walter, USA

Author’s Reply: You are right. I wonder, though, whether the high-tech weaponry of today along with strategies of “decapitation” might not have changed the conditions of the Vietnam War. I’m not sure. I was surprised, though, by how quickly the Iraqis capitulated.

May 7, 2003
Before You Become Too Flushed With Victory, Think About Ali Ismaeel Abbas

Ali is 12 years old. He is in Kindi hospital in Baghdad with both of his arms blown off by a missile. His mother, father and brother were killed in the attack. His mother was five months pregnant. Ali asks the reporter from Reuters, “Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?” It is heartbreaking.

The reporter for Reuters, Samia Nakhoul writes, “Abbas’ suffering offered one snapshot of the daily horrors afflicting Iraqi civilians in the devastating U.S.-led war to remove President Saddam Hussein.”

Or, take this report which appeared in The Guardian in London: “Unedited TV footage from Babylon Hospital, which was seen by the Guardian, showed the tiny corpse of a baby wrapped up like a doll in a funeral shroud and carried out of the morgue on a pink pallet. It was laid face-to-face on the pavement against the body of a boy, who looked about 10.”

The report continued, “Horrifically injured bodies were heaped into pick-up trucks, and were swarmed by relatives of the dead, who accompanied them for burial. Bed after bed of injured women and children were pictured along with large pools of blood on the floor of the hospital.”

At the hospital, a stunned man said repeatedly, “God take our revenge on America.”

But on American television we see none of this. The newscasters chatter endlessly about strategy and victory, and engage in inane ponderings about whether Saddam is dead or alive. Their human-interest stories are about American or “coalition” casualties. There is virtually nothing about the victims of the war, including children like Ali.

We need a new way of understanding war, in terms of children, not strategy. We need to understand war in terms of its costs to humanity rather than in terms of victory alone.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to have our newscasters talking to pediatricians as well as political pundits, to professors of international law in addition to retired military officers? Wouldn’t it be meaningful to have reporters speaking to us from Baghdad’s hospitals as well as from their positions embedded with our military forces?

Ali Ismaeel Abbas told the reporter who visited him, “We didn’t want war. I was scared of this war. Our house was just a poor shack. Why did they want to bomb us?”

Lying in his hospital bed, Ali told the reporter, “If I don’t get a pair of hands I will commit suicide.” Tears ran down his cheeks.

The next time you hear our newscasters, our political leaders or our pundits celebrating our “victory,” think about 12 year old Ali in his hospital bed. He is only one of potentially thousands of children who have paid the price in life, limb and loss of parents in what Dick Cheney calls “one of the most extraordinary military campaigns ever conducted.”
* David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time (Capra Press, 2003), and author of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age (Middleway Press, 2002).
Readers Comments

If you’d like to send us your comments please e-mail us at:
letters@napf.org
(Please include the name of the article in the subject line)

How easy it is to detach oneself from all this horror even for us who are in the peace movement, how easy to go to bed and forget. and yet I force myself to read over and over again about this little boy who lost both his arms, and I think of my own boy who runs and plays without a care. What is there that makes this world so full of mean spirited men like Bush and the deplorable Powell and company? I know that hate is not a good feeling but when I read this I hate until it makes me sick.

Grace, USA

At the risk of seeming like a sentimental slob (when the scope of this tragedy is so wide and so deep)—is there any way we could get some medical and financial help to this unfortunate child? (and be sure it gets to him?) i know nothing we do can undo what Rumsfeld et al have done to him and countless others, but i feel we should make a real effort to reach out to the victims, not just en masse, but individually, so they know that we do not share the lack of values that characterizes our leaders. thanks for your wonderful piece.

Daniel, USA

April 11, 2003
The Meaning of Victory

“Day by day we are moving closer to Baghdad. Day by day we are moving closer to victory.”

–George W. Bush, March 31, 2003
With these words, Mr. Bush sought to reassure the American people that his war plan is working, moving us closer to “victory.” As the United States continues its heavy and unrelenting bombing of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, inflicting death and suffering on the Iraqi people who we are supposedly liberating, we would do well to explore the meaning of victory. Thus far, few journalists, at least in the corporate mainstream US media, appear ready to do so. Those concerned with the path the war is taking might have added the following observations to Bush’s statement.

Day by day we are killing more Iraqi civilians. One day US forces bomb a marketplace, killing 62 civilians. Another day a car carrying women and children is fired on by US troops, killing seven. An Iraqi mother describes watching her young children’s heads severed from their bodies. According to news reports, some 500 to 700 Iraqi civilians have died thus far, and many more Iraqi soldiers have been slaughtered.

Day by day the “untold sorrow” mounts. One Iraqi man, whose family was killed by US bombing, cries out in pain, “God take our revenge on America!”

Day by day more of our young soldiers are dying and being maimed in battle and military accidents. Between US and British troops, more than 60 coalition soldiers are dead. Is this our victory, killing more of “them” than they kill of “us”?

Day by day we are spending more of our wealth on instruments of war as we relentlessly bombard Iraqi cities. Bush has asked for supplementary budget approval of $75 billion as a down payment on this war. This is in addition to the $400 billion already allocated for our military forces.

Day by day we are destroying more of the infrastructure of Iraqi cities that we are already allowing US companies to bid on to rebuild. Perhaps we should return to less deadly ways of transferring taxpayer wealth to favored corporations.

Day by day we are becoming more hated in the Middle East. Middle Eastern newspapers are printing these headlines, “Monstrous martyrdom in Baghdad” (Jordan), “Dreadful massacre in Baghdad” (Egypt), and “Yet another massacre by the coalition of invaders” (Saudi Arabia). Egyptian novelist Ezzat El Kamhawy writes, “This war is affecting civilians primarily. I did not expect to see civilians bombed and I feel exceedingly angry.” Throughout the Middle East, the people don’t seem to be celebrating our presence or our war, let alone our “victory.”

Day by day we are creating more terrorists intent upon attacking the US and American citizens. “When it is over, if it is over, this war will have horrible consequences,” says Egyptian President Hosni Mubarek. “Instead of having one [Osama] bin Laden, we will have 100 bin Ladens.” Does this fit with Mr. Bush’s concept of “victory”?

Day by day we are seeing the arrogance of the rush to war by the Bush administration. We have yet to see the Iraqis surrendering in large numbers and greeting the Americans as “liberators,” as the administration boldly claimed would happen. Perhaps Mr. Bush, so focused on victory and so lacking in historical perspective, has forgotten the US experience in Vietnam and the potency of nationalism in the defense of one’s country from outside invaders.

Day by day the Bush administration is continuing to alienate most of our key allies. The members of the “coalition of the willing” that have actually provided troops in Iraq consist of only the UK, Australia, Poland and Albania in addition to the US. Not even the three countries whose leaders have vocally supported the war–Spain, Italy and Bulgaria–are providing military support.

Day by day polls throughout the world are showing overwhelming opposition to the US invasion of Iraq, even in most of those countries where the governments are nominally supporting the US.

Day by day we are watching the erosion of our constitutional system of government. Congress has shirked its constitutional responsibility to declare war, and it seems poised to give the president all the funds he is requesting for his war.

Day by day, laws pressed by the Bush administration, such as the misnamed USA Patriot Act and planned supplements to this legislation, are undermining our Bill of Rights.

Day by day Americans are being misled by our mainstream corporate media, which seems comfortable acting as cheerleaders for the war. When veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett said on Iraqi television what he took to be the obvious truth, that the US timetable was falling by the wayside in Iraq, he was summarily fired by NBC.

Day by day Americans are expressing their support, but also their ignorance about the war. The polls inform us that 72 percent of Americans support the war, but at the same time 51 percent of Americans believe that Iraq attacked the World Trade Center, which is not true. Sixty-five percent of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map.

Day by day we are ignoring other serious problems in the world, including the dangerous potential for war on the Korean peninsula and the possibility of North Korea’s further nuclear proliferation. The Bush administration ignores North Korea’s pleas for negotiations with the US and its constructive proposals for a mutual security treaty.

Day by day we are using nuclear-tipped shells in this war to attack tanks and other armored vehicles. The “depleted uranium” in these munitions is transformed into fine dust particles upon impact, and the inhalation of these particles is thought to be responsible for the “Gulf War Syndrome” that has afflicted so many of our troops from the first Gulf War in 1991.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s depleted uranium project, has argued, “There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction – yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves. Such double standards are repellent.”

Day by day we are moving closer to using nuclear weapons, the real ones. The Bush administration has promulgated a doctrine of reserving “the right to respond with overwhelming force – including through resort to all of our options – to the use of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” The reference to “all of our options” is meant to obliquely send the message that nuclear weapons use is an option.

We don’t know whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but we have no reason to believe that they would not use chemical or biological weapons as a last resort if they did. And we have no reason to believe that the Bush junta would not follow through on their threats to use “all of our options,” including nuclear weapons.

Day by day the US economy is faltering. Since Bush came to office, the US has moved from large budget surpluses to large budget deficits. The stock markets have followed one major trend, downward, and the war seems to be exacerbating this trend.

Day by day funding is being cut for education, health care, head start programs and other important social programs so that we can pay for war. In 2001, 41.2 million Americans had no health insurance. There has been a 43 percent rise in unemployment since Bush took office. Pell grants, which have funded college educations particularly for worthy minority students, are being cut back from covering 84 percent of the costs to 42 percent of the costs. While important social programs are being cut back or eliminated, Bush is pressing for a $700 billion tax break for the wealthiest Americans.

Day by day the Bush administration is failing America’s veterans. The House of Representatives recently voted approval of a 2004 budget that will cut $25 billion over ten years from veteran’s health care and benefit programs. This came just one day after Congress voted overwhelmingly to “support our troops.”

Day by day the most respected moral leaders in the world are speaking out against a war they find to be immoral and lacking in legitimacy. These leaders include The Pope, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former South African President Nelson Mandela.

The Pope has repeatedly insisted that a preventive war has no legal or moral justification, and has called the war “a defeat for humanity.” Nelson Mandela has called Bush’s actions in Iraq “a tragedy.” “What I am condemning,” Mandela said, “is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust.”

As if to underline Mandela’s insights about him, Bush, according to Time magazine, told three US Senators as far back as March 2002, “F–k Saddam. We’re taking him out.”

As we race toward the “victory” that Mr. Bush seems so confident will be achieved, what are the consequences likely to be?

— There will be greater instability in the Middle East as the US attempts to occupy Iraq.

— The US will be roundly hated in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world.

— Terrorism against the US will increase, including terrorism in the US.

— Our guaranteed freedoms in the US Bill of Rights will continue to be reduced.

— The US economy will be in shambles, with few social programs left intact.

— US alliances of long duration will be difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild.

— The likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation and use will increase.

Former US marine and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has doubts about Bush’s “victory”: “We find ourselves…facing a nation of 23 million, with armed elements numbering around seven million – who are concentrated at urban areas. We will not win this fight. America will lose this war.”

But Mr. Bush tells us, “Day by day we are moving closer to victory.” General Tommy Franks, the commander of the US war effort, tells us, “The outcome is not in doubt.” In all likelihood, however, it will not be the outcome that Mr. Bush and his administration are anticipating, but one far worse for all of us. It is past time for the American people to wake up to the meaning of “victory.”
* David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the author of Choose Hope, Your Role in Waging Peace in the Nuclear Age (Middleway Press, 2002) and editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).

April 3, 2003
Shock But Not Awe

I write with a heavy heart. Our cause has shifted from trying to prevent a needless war to seeking to end an illegal war. The audacity of the Bush administration takes one’s breath away.

The United States is bombing Baghdad, engaged in its “shock and awe” strategy. Shock yes, but there is no awe. To suggest awe reflects only the arrogance of the Bush militarists. US attacks on Iraq are shocking and awful.

Shocking that we are at war in violation of international law and our Constitution.

Shocking that our government is committing aggressive warfare, which is a crime.

Shocking that a large majority of the US Congress has been so compliant and cowardly, handing over their responsibility to declare war to the president. By giving up their Constitutional powers, Congress is putting the future of our Republic in jeopardy.

Shocking that Bush has demonstrated contempt for the strongly held positions of our allies, and hundreds of millions of their protesting citizens throughout the world.

Shocking that Bush has shown such studied indifference to the millions of Americans who have taken to the streets in protest of his war plans.

Shocking that the United States has attacked Iraq in defiance of the United Nations Security Council and with disregard for US obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.

Shocking that the United States has acted in bad faith, having assured the other members of the Security Council at the time of passage of Resolution 1441 that it does not provide for an automatic recourse to war. John Negroponte, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, assured other members of the Security Council on the day that Resolution 1441 was passed: “Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the Council, and the Council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.” What he apparently meant was that the Security Council would have a chance to endorse a US-led war against Iraq or be cast aside as irrelevant.

Now we are faced with the challenge of ending this illegal war, and bringing those who are committing war crimes to justice. This must not be only victors’ justice, but justice that applies to all sides. As Bush and Rumsfeld have emphasized, following superior orders will not be a defense to the commission of war crimes. This should be so both for the Iraqi leadership and for the American leadership.

The anger wells up at the hypocrisy and arrogance of the Bush administration. The two most powerful statements that I have seen recently in opposition to the war are Senator Byrd’s lamentation, “Today, I weep for my country…” and the expression of bitterness of Michael Waters-Bey, the bereft father of one of the US soldiers to die in a helicopter crash returning to Kuwait from a mission in Iraq. Mr. Waters-Bey said that he wanted to tell the president that “this was not your son or daughter. That chair he sat in at Thanksgiving will be empty forever.”

There will be more killing and more deaths, more empty chairs. It is a time of sadness, as our country is losing its credibility and honor throughout the world. It is a time of tragedy that the militarists are having their day. It is a time of shock, but far from a time of awe. We will find a way back to decency, democracy and the rule of law. Until then, we must continue to express our dissent and opposition to this war, to policies of perpetual war, and to the diminishment of our democratic rights. We must also find a way to hold the guilty accountable for their crimes against peace and war crimes.
* David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the editor of Hope in a Dark Time, Reflections on Humanity’s Future (Capra Press, 2003).

March 24, 2003
Standing on the Precipice of War

A war against Iraq would be a tragedy beyond our imaginations.

Bush has called for “a moment of truth.” And indeed we need truth to counter the big and persistent lies of the Bush administration.

The biggest lie is to suggest, as the Bush administration has repeatedly done, that Saddam Hussein is responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The Bush administration is responsible for more than half the US public incorrectly believingthat Saddam Hussein had a hand in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

It is a lie to suggest that war will bring peace and that it will increase our security. War will only bring increased violence, suffering and death. And the victims will be mostly innocent civilians, but they will also be young American soldiers. War against Iraq will likely incite terrorism against the people of the United States on a scale as yet unimagined.

It is a lie to paint the face of Saddam Hussein on the children of Iraq. Over half the population of Iraq is 15 years of age or younger. A US war against Iraq will be a war against children.

It is a lie to say that the weapons inspections are not working. The chief weaponsinspector and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency tell us otherwise.

It is a lie to say that Security Council Resolution 1441 authorizes any country to attack Iraq. This resolution authorizes the UN inspectors to do the job they are doing. A war against Iraq will be in violation of Resolution 1441 and the United Nations Charter.

It is a lie to say that the United Nations is irrelevant. It has proven its relevance by standing up to the bullying and coercion of the Bush administration. It has spoken for peace, for disarmament and for the weapons inspectors to continue their work.

By attacking Iraq, the Bush administration will make the United States an outlaw nation, as Blair will make the UK an outlaw nation. The US and UK will lose theircredibility and moral basis for leadership.

The Bush administration has issued a list of Iraqis who will be held to account for international crimes. But if the US and UK attack Iraq, the leaders of the attacking nations will be committing the crime of aggression for which the German leaders were held to account at Nuremberg following World War II.

One way to stop this war would be for Mr. Hussein and his sons to bow to Bush’s will and accept exile, but this seems highly unlikely.

Another way to prevent an aggressive war at this time is for the United Nations weapons inspectors to courageously refuse to leave Iraq and continue their inspections as mandated under Resolution 1441.Would the United States and the United Kingdom dare to launch their “shock and awe” attack against the Iraqi people while the UN weapons inspectors continue to carry out their mandate in Iraq?

Another way to prevent an aggressive war would be for the Pope to personally go to Baghdad, and to call upon all of his faith to refuse to fight in this unjust war.

The Pope could also convene an urgent Peace Conference in Baghdad, inviting political and religious leaders from around the world to meet in Baghdad.

Still another way would be for Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and other world leaders to personally intercede and attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution.Another way to potentially stop the war, given the impasse in the Security Council, would be for the United Nations General Assembly to go into emergency session to adopt a Uniting for Peace Resolution, prohibiting war against Iraq.

Another way, with far more honor than war, would be for Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein to settle their differences mano a mano. With personal courage they could spare both of their peoples a disastrous war.

Yet another way would be for commanders and troops of the so-called “coalition of the willing” to refuse to follow illegal orders to participate in aggressive warfare that is unauthorized by the United Nations Security Council. As Mr. Bush pointed out, echoing the judgment at Nuremberg, following superior orders does not constitute a defense to illegal acts of war – and this applies to both sides.

With Mr. Bush’s deadline, the time is short, but there remains time for creativity and initiative.

March 18, 2003