MESSAGE TO THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT: WAKE THE FUCK UP
A repost of an eloquent, moving article by David Kelley... While the antiwar movement is busy debating really significant issues like how long to have their meetings or promoting "internal democracy," reality is moving faster than you can think. IN case you haven't realized it, the USA is getting ready to attack Iraq, either in the next few months or early next year. Instead of fighting political turf battles, maybe one should be working to *prevent* this attack in the first place. Waiting until the bombs start falling is too late. In the immortal words of WU TANG CLAN: WAKE THE FUCK UP--OR GET WOKE THE FUCK UP.
US Set to Attack Iraq
David M. Kelley 1:44am Thu Jul 11 '02
US Set to Attack Iraq
We have all heard the reports. Plans have been drawn up and been approved. Allies are being gathered. Bases are being sought.
Today, Jordan, after stating that it would not help the US government in a war against Iraq, now says that the US military can use their bases for humanitarian purposes. Translation: US put tremendous pressure on Jordan and Jordan is folding.
A report in the London Times ( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-352780,00.html) states that ex-patriate generals from Iraq have gathered for serious discussions on the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall. All that's needed is to get the rest of the soldiers there and give the go order. Presumeably they are discussing details of an invasion as well. Such discussions usually take place in such an obvious context, only if there is significant hope that they can pull off their plans fairly soon. Let the bloodshed begin.
There has been a lot of speculation on just when such a go order would be given. There are quite a few things to take into consideration. For starters, our own elections. The president does not want to jeopardize his parties chances in November. To that end, he has two choices: either he can send the military in before the elections and hope for a quick knock-out punch and let the Republicans ride the resulting glory to victory in the polls; or, if he is not certain of his chances for a swift military defeat of Iraq, he can wait until after November, hoping that the elections result in at least a status quo, meaning a Congress locked in indecision and unable to challenge the president's policies. Ideally, for the president, he will see his party make massive gains and then he can pretty much do what he and his cronies want. Of course, since Congress will be adjourning soon to allow members to campaign for re-election, it would be better for the president to make that move when they are out of session and thus, they can't bother him with questions on his decisions. George Bush doesn't want to risk Congress telling him no.
Another consideration is the weather. Althought the CIA Factbook online states that overall the weather in Iraq is mild in the winter, parts of it do see heavy snow. It is a well known military axiom that one doesn't start an invasion in the winter, and those that don't heed that quickly suffer serious consequences. (For examples, look at Hitler's and Napoleon's invasions of Russia) This leaves the president to give the marching orders in summer/fall or early spring. This time, Iraq is probably not going to allow a six month buildup of forces in the area. That leaves summer/fall.
There is also the political fallout from the administrations many mistakes, most of which it refuses to even acknowledge, in Afghanistan. In order to rescue itself, the Department of Defense needs some flashy victory, no matter how false or incomplete. Just something to show us staying at home that it can do the job, preferably with a lot of flair. Any more mistakes in Afghanistan and Congress is going to start calling for their withdrawal, questioning the necessity of our continued presence. (Especially if there is any risk at all of someone being sent to the ICC for those mistakes.) This means that they need to shift theaters of operation, in order to maintain, if not interest and support, at least apathy. That calls for a quick deployment.
Congress is set to adjour on October 4, 2002. I am going to go far out on a limb. I am predicting an attack on Iraq to begin in October, 2002. How symbolic if they were to use Columbus day, Monday, October 14. Look for tension to rise in the Middle East, possibly easing between Israel and Palestine, since the US doesn't want to have to worry about that at the same time. Troop deployments to the Middle East will begin in September, possibly as early as mid-August. Don't look for a huge buildup of half a million people. The US has stated that it wants to use about 50,000 soldiers. It will be tight, what with all the equipment, but the military can get it done, barring a major catastrophe. I predict that the US will stage aircraft and amphibious assaults from the Persian Gulf, invasions from Kuwait, Turkey, and maybe Jordan. The main aircraft bombardment will also take place from Turkey. Those generals mentioned in the London Times will make their stand in the north.
Now some other questions. Why am I saying all this? If the US plans to use military force, some will no doubt say that I am jepeordizing the lives of US soldiers. Well, guess what? The Congress is most likely not going to make a formal declaration of war. The Constitution requires that they do so before the President can make the decisions he is about to make, which is to invade a foreign nation. Especially without provocation.
No matter what the outcome, no matter how many smart bombs the military uses or how accurate they are, face it, innocent civilians are going to get hurt. And killed. Why? Haven't we advanced far enough that we no longer need to resort to such large scale, violent, senseless destruction, not just of property, but of human life? Every one that dies or is injured as a result of this endless war on terror has a face. Our fellow citizens following orders as soldiers as well as innocent people trying to put their life back together, such as at a wedding in Afghanistan. What if one of those children that died in what was supposed to be a celebration of life, a wedding, that turned into a catastrophe was the one who was going to come up with a cure for cancer? Now, of course, we will never know.
As far as Saddam Hussein goes, sure he is no proverbial saint. No one is. He is alleged to have committed numerous attrocities. (Many American leaders have allegedly committed heinous atrocities Alleged because they have not been convicted in a court of law yet, and I still believe in the maxim of innocent until proven guilty, no matter who is charged with whatever horrible crime.) But at the same time he is the sovereign ruler of another nation. The US has no right to dictate how political change must come about in another nation. That has always been up to the people of that country. Maybe he does rule with an iron fist, perhaps brutally crushing any hint of dissent where ever he spies it. Again, where is the conviction from a court? But think about this for a moment. His people are starving, desparately poor, in tragic need of medicine and aid to rebuild their infrastructure. To rebuild their own shattered lives after the first Gulf War. With such desparation as must exist, why haven't they overthrown Saddam on their own? There aren't that many bullets to go around. The jails can't hold that many people. It is just possible, maybe a slim possibility, that those people are satisfied with his leadership. Sure no one is perfect. Even if Ralph Nader had been elected president in 2000, I would still find something to criticize about how he would have done the job. But I am sure that I would be a lot more satisfied with his leadership than what we have currently.
So why am I saying this? I am tired of the US, one president after another, one Congress after another, insisting on being the world's policemen. I am tired of this because the most obvious results are not a spreading of democracy, in what ever form, but instead a series of horrifying deaths, a cycle of endless poverty, a well of deep, inescapable misery for the downtrodden of the Earth. The few holding immense wealth, instead of using their resources to help those in need, choose to exploit those teeming masses, brutally in a senseless divide and conquer fashion. The result of a US invasion of Iraq will bring nothing but pain and death to the people of Iraq. They don't deserve that.
In addition to posting this on Seattle Indymedia, the general Indymedia site, I will also send this to the Iraqi News Agency. I hope that they will forward it to President Hussein. Since our own leadership is hell bent on starting a war, I can only hope that he will do something to avert those needless deaths to come.
add a comment on this article
add a comment on this article