Bush's War On Iraq For Dummies

I don't get it. Just about everyone in the world -- including even his father's famous brain trust --thinks that Bush attacking Iraq, with no provocation, is a terrible idea and will harm America's nationalinterests. But Mr. Bush and his advisors don't seem to give a fig and bluster right on, convinced they'redoing the right thing. Please explain.

A. Nothing is ever simple in politics. There are the things that are revealed, usually for a reason, andthere is the stuff taking place behind the scenes, the subtext, as it were.

Here, the visible reasons have to do with the fact that Saddam Hussein, in truth, is a very bad, dangerousman. Once he gets his hands on nuclear weaponry, to go along with his biological and chemical agents, he mightwell gain control of that region of the world, and thoroughly upset the status quo, which would be unbearablefor Iraq's neighbors and for the U.S. So, the reasoning goes, better to take him out now, before he starts hismischief.

The subtext: Bush&Co. see that the U.S.ofA. is the world's only superpower and thus has a window ofopportunity to do what it wants, take what it wants, while the doing and taking are good. In short, to remakethe world in America's image, to structure a new world order that, in all things that matter, does America'sbidding. By taking out Saddam, the word goes out: Don't mess with us, ever; if you do, you can expect the sametreatment. Thus, if this theory of bullyish behavior is right, after some initial chaos, things will settleback into a fairly stable, America-friendly operational mode: oil&gas will remain safely in Western hands,and reasonably affordable; many nationalist rebellions will be put down as "terrorist" threats; thecapitalist market will romp supreme.

What if this theory is wrong? What if people don't especially want to be ruled by America and follow allits dictates? What if they want to choose another path?

A. They can follow whatever path they want. As long as it does not threaten American economic or militarydominance. In other words, as in any empire's far-flung holdings, they have a bit of wiggle room, but notmuch.

This new Bush doctrine basically seems to be saying that whenever you think another country is going toharm your interests, it's OK pre-emptively to invade them or assassinate their leaders -- in other words, dounto others before they even think about doing unto you. Couldn't this lead to all sorts of bad consequences?

A. Yes, there is that likely free-for-all around the globe. The Russians just smash the Chechnians underthe "anti-terrorist" justification, and the U.S. has to remain silent. Sharon claims Arafat isthinking about getting ready to assassinate Israeli leaders, and takes out the Palestinian chairman. Chinasays that Taiwan is considering declaring its independence, and the attack is on. You can see how this ballcan roll. But, in the end, for the sake of international stability, The Enforcer will tend to intervene tosettle such disputes. Guess who that Enforcer will be: the one great power all others must take intoconsideration when contemplating action, at least for the next decade or two. (All this suggests a much moremilitarist society in the U.S., to support such worldwide responsibilities.)

Let's get back to Iraq for a moment. You skimmed over the obvious reasons for Bush attacking thatcountry. Does Saddam have these horrible weapons at his disposal? Is he going to use them, either on hisneighbors or on the U.S. and its coalition partner(s)?

A. Saddam has lots of stuff hidden. He could have used his stockpiles of nerve gas and toxins during thelast Persian Gulf War, but he was warned that if he did, he'd bring total disaster on himself and his regime.He chose not to use them, he chose to survive. But now he's told from the outset that it isn't just theweapons the U.S. is after but his head. If he can't wiggle out of the vise this time, he may well feel, sincehe'll be going down anyway, that he might as well use his weapons, taking as many Americans, Brits and, bylong distance, Israelis with him. He might even be willing (if he hasn't already done so) to hand over toxicweaponry to al-Qaida operatives, for delivery in the U.S. and Israel.

I keep hearing Bush say that Saddam is only six months away from having nuclear capability, and thatthere are documents to prove it.

A. Certainly, it's clear that Saddam long has been interested in achieving nuclear capability. ButBush&Co. based its flimsy six-months theory on a supposed study done by the International Atomic EnergyAgency a few years ago. The problem is that no such study exists. When informed of this minor impediment, theBush spokesmen said he really was referring to a 1991 United Nations study. Same problem: There is no suchstudy.

But now the U.N. might send its inspectors back in to locate all this dread stuff. Wouldn't that takecare of the situation?

A. Even if these first-time-out inspectors found something in the limited time that will be available tothem -- Saddam has had four years to secrete the weapons, stashed far underground in out-of-the-way locations,and much is hidden away in presidential palaces, off-limits to inspectors -- Bush has made it clear that theinspection regime is just a fig-leaf, something he has to pay lip-service to, to show that he went that extradiplomatic mile. Bush won't let any findings dissuade him one way or another. The softening-up bombing for hisattack already has begun, and the major war moves will come probably within a few months, if not sooner.Actually, though, Bush&Co. is hoping for another solution.

You mean there's a non-violent way to solve this situation?

A. We wouldn't go that far, but it's at least different from full-scale invasion. Bush&Co. are hopingthat by being so very obvious and threatening about what's about to go down in Iraq, some officer or otherwill put a bullet in Saddam's brain, and thus lead the way for a diplomatic settlement, with another Iraqigovernment coming to power, one more amenable to U.S. demands. The only problem with this scenario is thatit's delusional.

Saddam runs one of the more tyrannical, murderous, totalitarian regimes on the planet; no anti-regimeofficer has been able to get near the guy for decades, as he continually wipes out any officer corps aboutwhich he has even the whiff of suspicion. Nope, to get Saddam, the U.S. is going to have to go in there andfight street by street, house by house, to find him. It's going to be a bloody mess, and probably entailhundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, many of them remaining there for a long time. The "collateraldamage" to innocent civilians will be enormous, and the American troops coming home in body bagslikewise, some due probably to toxic overexposure.

On the other hand, it is possible, if not likely, that once the U.S. troops enter Baghdad and start theSaddam-hunt, some military faction may see the handwriting on the wall and decide to give away the location oftheir leader. But counting on that to happen early might be a big mistake.

What about the famed "Arab street"? Won't there be an upheaval in reaction to the U.S.unprovokingly attacking another Islamic country?

A. There may well be and America's sometime-allies in the region -- Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al. --could have their "moderate" governments overthrown by Islamicist extremists. But the U.S. doesn'tseem to care. If it has to, it'll take on those bad guys if and when the time comes. But invasion doesn'talways have to happen in the Giant Elephant scenario: the huge beast roars and everyone backs away so as notto enrage it further. They've seen what kind of rampage the Elephant is capable of, and choose to live tofight another day.

Why the rush to invade? Iraq is not threatening the U.S. or even its immediate neighbors. Am I missingsomething?

A. Bush&Co. are terrified of getting bogged down by traditional international diplomacy. They just wantto get in there and do the deed, and to hell with everyone else. Plus, if they wait much longer than a fewmonths from now, the weather will be too hot for the heavy anti-toxicity suits the U.S. troops will have towear. Plus, Bush&Co. have put their macho believability on the line; they're trying to box everyone intothe fait accompli corner. If they postpone much longer, or even are forced to back away from the attack, theywill look like wusses -- in short, they will remind everyone of Poppy, who didn't finish the job the firsttime.

Are you saying the attack is a done deal, that there's nothing the American people -- or those opposedabroad -- can do to impede the war machine?

A. The Democrats in Congress don't seem to have the desire to stand up to Bush before the November electionand risk looking wimpy or "unpatriotic." (There are a few with wisdom and courage, such as that oldConstitutionalist Robert Byrd -- and Al Gore made a dynamite speech -- but they are few and far between.)There isn't yet a truly effective and widespread "peace movement" in the streets, analogous to themillions who opposed the Vietnam War in demonstrations. The recalcitrant allies in Europe and elsewhere arebasically toothless when it comes to making their opposition hurt the U.S.

What is possible is that by ratcheting up the opposition, here and abroad, Bush&Co. will be boxed intoa political corner that reveals even more clearly their disdain for the American populace. When the war comesand goes sour, there may be grounds for, and an organizational structure in place to demand, a heavy electoralprice in 2004 for such imperial folly, maybe even a move toward impeachment.

You've used the "i" word before. Are you for real?

A. There are so many serious scandals involving the Bush administration that have disappeared from thefront pages because of the Iraq focus -- any one of those would be enough to get the impeachment ball rolling.But, when you add the Iraq war to it, the willingness to put in harm's way young American troops in apre-emptive strike on the flimsiest of surmises, there's even more impeachment-ammunition. (If, by somechance, the Dems can take over the House and hold onto the Senate in next month's election, you'll begin tosee more courage flowing into their veins and the beginning of meaningful investigations.)

You aren't painting a very rosy picture here. You're saying there's not much we ordinary Americancitizens can do to stop the coming war with Iraq, nor much our skeptical allies can do abroad. But,regardless, we shouldn't stop trying: if we don't get Bush now, we'll set the stage for getting him later.

A. In broad outline, that's about where we are now. This arrogant, anti-democratic, anti-Constitutionalbully of an administration is not going to change its course until absolutely forced to. Citizen agitation ispart of that process of forcing them to. It won't be easy and it may not come as quickly as we would like --though, if the election results in November are favorable, it will begin to generate a growing momentum.

But we are building the foundation for removal from office of these dangerous bullyboys, and more and morecitizens (even a lot from the conservative side) are beginning to come around. We WILL get rid of these guys.Don't lose the faith, eyes on the prize, a better day is coming, organize, organize, organize.

Bernard Weiner, a poet and playwright, was the San Francisco Chronicle's theater critic for nearly20 years. A Ph.D. in government & international relations, he has taught at various universities andpublished in The Nation, Village Voice, The Progressive, and widely on the internet.