Powell's bluff—smoke and mirrors

From Economic Democracy, 10 Feburary 2003

Earlier we posted debunking the so-called case for If Iraq does not Disarm, then we must disarm it revealing the hidden premises and the deceit behind it.

Now, we are told, not only would a US invasion and overthrow of Iraq be ok if WMDs were found, but even if cooperation is not proactive enough and if various satellite pictures and other visual attractions can be used to argue that this unknown item which was seen to be moved at this time from this location to that location, etc, etc, mean that the solution is not to investigate that evidence, but (surprise surprise) to bomb.

An Oscar award is due to both the media and the Bush team for their performance over the past many months insisting they had not made up their minds and are reluctant to invade Iraq. A star performance. Someone this is to be believed despite regime change* being the aim, openly stated, all along (actually we would love regime change too, but that is not the honest thing Bush wants; see below)

If in fact Bush had ANY useful evidence of ANY evasion, unknown arms, etc, by Iraq, then if disarming any WMD in Iraq was REMOTELY their purposes, their obvious actions would have been to inform the inspectors (without necessarily telling Iraq) so that, armed with these (we are told) important and fundamental pieces of satellite photos etc, the inspectors could have—on their own terms (since Iraq wouldn't know just how much the inspectors know—confront Iraq with specific questions about where was this item, what happened at that date at that place, etc.

Powell today if disarming Iraq were remotely the policy, would have presented thus: Here is the info we gave to the inspectors; here is what they did on the ground, here is what they found out based on our information, here is what they asked the Iraqi officials, and here is the responses they got from Iraq but no—why not?

Does it make any sense whatsoever to not have given all of this information to the inspectors BACK THEN (not now)? And not to have, furthermore, encouraged (indeed pressed) the inspectors to use this information to uncover every possible WMD, every possible moving-things-around by Iraq, every possible no-no behavior, and then let the inspectors report on the reactions they got, and Powell could have thusly reported too if he wanted? Why on earth not? It makes zero sense..

.Unless disarming is not the first objective, and a military attack and bombing and invasion and overthrow by Washington was the first objective—in which case the decision to not give (to the inspectors) all of the information Bush/Powell claim is so revealing, to the inspectors BACK THEN and to share claims about it (to the public) NOW, would make very good sense.

Don't be fooled: whether Saddam is wants to hide or not is not the key question. The key question is, can the inspection process—even if Iraqis cooperated mostly in process but not proactively —could successfully inspect and keep Iraq disarmed. You don't bomb based on what Saddam is or is not trying. If the inspections are successful—as they have been more so in disarming Iraq even than the 1991 War—that is what is key. A lesson for us indeed: the Inspections after the Gulf War of 1991 have been far more successful than the Gulf War of 1991 in disarming Iraq. That speaks volumes.

See http://economicdemocracy.org/wtc/mass-distraction.html for the much deeper logically (on top of factually) dishonest elements of the reasonable-sounding If Iraq Does not disarm, them we must disarm it

As for the goal being regime change that not only exposes the lie that we didn't decide on war from day 1 but also is not quite honest: they are not for regime change; they are for US-based leadership-change (while still preventing democracy in Iraq, so they can control it) One can point to example, after example, after example of Iraqis who would have overthrown Saddam had the US not slammed the door in their faces, or had Stormin' Norman not accidentally let Saddam use his aircraft immediately after the Gulf War (when US had *total* control) and so on—because they would not be—I won't say 'puppets'—they would be democratic and thus not easily controlled.

These options are still there if we were serious about getting rid of Saddam—without $100 billion spent or the bloodshed of tens of thousands of Iraqis and who know how many Americans—if we were willing (what Bush is not willing) to let Iraqi democratic resistance groups—who are not bad people but are not people you can control by remote—letting them get rid of Saddam. Bush doesn't want that—if the Iraqi people had democracy they would control the oil, not the US, and they would get the lion's share of profits. Why not let them?

Let them have democracy, while getting rid of Saddam. We'd more than make up the money by saving the billions of our tax-dollars Bush would spend on bombs and a war. Iraqis would win, Americans would win, Saddam would be out, but (the only two flaws) Washington would not control the oil—the Iraqi people would—and ExxonMobil would get profits, but more would go to the Iraqi people, less to it.