March 7, 2003

I AM NOW ANTI-WAR

By James Eugene*

I hate saying that. For months, I have been ambivalently in favor of ousting Saddam Hussein (who I will refer to as Hussein, rather than glorifying him with celebrity status and using his first name only). I wanted the UN to go along. I got mad at the French and Germans, particularly for acting holier than thou. I was impressed with the "evidence" presented at the UN, that, while not a "smoking gun", was hot enough to convince me that Hussein is playing games. I am not convinced by the argument to let inspectors have more time. Hussein has had 12 years to comply with the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire and he offers no proof of his destruction program even today. I have no doubt that Hussein will try things in the future designed to damage U.S. interests in a covert manner, although how much of that is because the U.S. provokes him is open to question.

All of these reasons still remain true. But I am now anti-war. Why? The reason is quite simple. I do not trust the President anymore.

When I lose trust in a politician, it is gone forever. It cannot be recaptured. When President Clinton looked into the camera and said, "I did not have sex with that woman, Lewinsky," and then admitted that he did eight months later, well, that ended my trust in Clinton because he looked right into that camera and lied to me. Forget about perjury. He said those things to someone else. But when Clinton looked into that camera, he lied to me. What was he to say? Better to keep your mouth shut than to outright lie! Once a President lies, I begin to wonder, can I trust him if he asks me to send our troops off to war?

As big as Clinton's lie was in 1997, George Bush has been living a bigger lie these past five months. He has gone to us and the United Nations with the pretense that he was seeking to insure that there were no weapons of mass destruction within Iraq. He also in a cryptic manner stated that Iraq needed "regime change." Then in another statement, the Administration added that if Hussein disarms, that would have the same effect as regime change. Now the Administration has decided that this is not good enough, that Hussein must go period.

That means for the past five months, we have experienced a sham. It was not destruction of the weapons that mattered after all. It was the elimination of Hussein. All these pretenses at the UN… totally irrelevant. We led on the UN and had no intention of ever doing anything else but getting rid of Hussein. But why Hussein? Why not Assad in Syria (who harbors terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which may wind up being more of a threat than Al-Qaida in the long run)? Why not Saudi Arabia, which preaches hatred of Judaism, Christianity and America in its schools? Why not North Korea, of whom this Administration is sure has a weapon of mass destruction?

I can think of some arguments to go after Iraq first (for example, Hussein has actually invaded another country, Kuwait, and used the weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, the Iranians and maybe even our own troops). But the Administration does not forward these arguments, so I must wonder about their motives. I especially question their motives now that Bush has given Hussein an incentive not to cooperate with the UN inspectors. Think about it. If you are Hussein, why bother with cooperation if the United States will invade your country just to throw you out anyway? Of course, if you then don't cooperate, the United States will use that as a pretext for invasion. Hussein must leave either way. So now it is out, Bush played a charade the past five months in hopes that Hussein would screw up and Bush would have an internationally accepted excuse for war. Now that possibility is becoming more distant.

Other things also made me a little too suspicious. In the past, I would hear Administration arguments for the benefits of the war. Each time an argument was made, it was as if the Administration was fishing for reasons, and the argument was then quickly discredited in a few days. For example, a few months ago it said "oil prices will go down." But this excuse would be debunked within days (everyone conceded Hussein would ruin his oil fields and it would take some time to repair them and besides, OPEC has more control over the price). Next, it was "Hussein is tied to Al-Qaida." However, articles I read in the foreign press seem to dispel this. (I love the ability to read foreign papers via the Internet.) They point out that not all Afghan-based terrorists are Al-Qaida linked or even concerned about the United States. (And usually a few weeks later the American press picks up on the strained connections.)

Hussein may, in fact, be linked to other terrorist organizations, and this can be a reason to go to war (who, after all, is to say that these other groups should not be curtailed). However, the Administration tries to pin everything to Al-Qaida, when such a view appears remarkably unsophisticated and deliberately disingenuous.

Now we hear the new excuse, to bring Iraq into the world of democracy (gee. can we get this done in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, etc… at the same time?). And how much is this going to cost? Frankly, given the President's inability to crunch economic numbers properly (have you noticed our country's economy, or lack thereof, lately), I tend to distrust his cost forecasts. He has not been right about a single number domestically, so why should I trust him when his people immediately undercuts high forecasts given by other members of his own Administration? (And you know that if it winds up being the high number, his Administration will say I told you so.) And if we exploit Iraq's oil to pay the cost, are we democratizing it or colonializing it?

I am also tired of the Department of Homeland Security and its color alerts. Hell, we are already a nation on edge. I don't need a damn color scheme to tell me how concerned I should be. I am concerned ALL THE TIME! And really now, do you honestly believe Al-Qaida is going to strike during a high-alert stage? It is now so easy for terrorists to manipulate our country. I can hear Osama now, "just chatter up guys and we give America anxiety attacks, but make sure you don't strike during high alerts, remember to get them while the alert is low." The color scheme is the biggest CYA this country has ever seen, and I do not trust it as anything more than that at this stage.

But nothing I state here is a reason not to go to war. All the old reasons in favor of war remain, except for one. I no longer trust George W. Bush. I am now anti-war.

AND WHO IS THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD?

Think about this for a second. The President of the United States has been the leader of the free world since the end of World War II. This leadership usually stemmed from both a military and intellectual standpoint. But more than militarily that leadership, which we prided ourselves on, came from the intellectual standpoint.

But does that happen anymore? Look at us, trying to bribe poorer nations on the Security Council with more foreign aid. Bargaining with Turkey for base usage. This is not the force of our argument, this is the force of our pocketbook (one that is in serious deficit).

Even early on in this Administration, when making the intellectual case for war against Afghanistan, the Bush Administration abdicated its leadership role to a leader on the other side of the Atlantic. A leader more eloquent, more able, more intellectual. A leader who, for example, convinced a reluctant Bush to reach out to Putin and made him realize that Putin could be trusted. A leader who, too often, needs to tell our country's foreign policy leaders what is the world's pulse. That leader is Tony Blair.

I like Tony Blair. I just find it tremendously sad and wrong that our President is no longer the intellectual leader of the free world.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.