Semi-Daily Journal

Where are the babies? One day either Bush or Blair will claim that Iraq must be invaded because Iraqis are hungry...

Something has changed over the last few months. The major issue in this war -- the real threat to many countries throughout the world -- is no longer Saddam Hussein, it is George Bush.

Just this morning, a prominent columnist (Haroon Siddqui) with the Toronto Star had a similar article to the one posted here, listing nine claims that Hans Blix or Mohammed El Baradei had refuted .

It is easy sitting here to dismiss some of Br. Bush's over the top claims as rhetoric that no one takes seriously, but the reactions of the North Korean government, and possibly the Iranians, demonstrate just how seriously he is taken, and how scary he is, in parts of the world that may be on the receiving end of his bombs.

Russell Green, soon-to-be Berkeley Ph.D. and U.S. Treasury economist, had a great column published in the Daily Cal today:
http://www.dailycal.org/article.asp?id=11289

His point? That every bit of anti-Francism (why not?) that this Administration is encouraging is a calculated PR effort aimed at giving the impression that there is only one country, funny little France, that is against the war (whereas, outside the US, there is hardly any citizen supportive of this war. How bizzare!)

Since there probably isn't any real virtuous reason to pre-emptively attack nations and kill their citizens in an effort to turn the entire world world into the GREAT AMERICAN EMPIRE ( http://home.earthlink.net/~platter/neo-conservatism/pnac.html ), I supose it is necessary to chronicly lie when selling the plan to the American people; who generally want to do the right thing and be the Good Guys.

I completely agree with Peter Beinart's criticisms of Bush.

And if I only thought that *everybody* was telling the truth other than Bush, I too could be a chirpy happy leftist siding with France and Hussein. Alas, I suspect that everybody else is being no more honest, but getting cut far more slack by the Left.

In other words, yes! Bush should stop lying -- and so should Chirac, and so should Hussein. But America actually will bother to hold Bush's feet to the fire, while France and Iraq either won't or can't do the same with their leaders. So which one should I fear and distrust the least, again?

Ha! Ha! Ha!

So is this the Bushies next brilliant move? Sure, we lie, everybody lies!

Why do people invent phoney reasons and evidence in support of the policies they advocate, or stupidly accept bogosites they would see through in a second were it not for their prior commitment to those policies?

Surely it can only because the real facts as they would soberly know them are not enough to convince them of the correctness of their beliefs.

Since I think it would be a good thing if the UN overthrew Saddam purely for the things he has done, I see no reason to invent false reasons.

But I'm uncomfortable being politically in bed with people who somehow don't find my reasons sufficient. This is partly, of course, because such people include Donald Rumsfeld, Saddam's erstwhile friend, supporter, and ally.

Well, Blair *is* considered a liar in the U.K. Schroeder *is* considered a liar in Germany (there are even Top 40 songs written about it). Chirac *is* considered a liar here in France.

The difference between Bush/Blair and Chirac/Schroeder? The Bs look to have lied about a war-and-peace issue, while Chirac/Schroeder, who certainly lied on other issues such as Schroeder on the economy and Chirac on political campaign finance, are considered extremely trustworthy by their electorates on the war. Maybe the electorates are wrong and they have lied, but I at least haven't caught one.

Now that doesn't mean the war is wrong. Just because you've lied doesn't mean there isn't a truth somewhere justifying the war. But I would like to know what it is.

We're heading to a situation where the U.S./U.K. have to win big and win quickly, because about the only thing that justifies the war in the present situation is if it's not a war but a police action. We go in, round up the bad guys, send them to prison, with nary a soul hurt.

"Since I think it would be a good thing if the UN overthrew Saddam purely for the things he has done, I see no reason to invent false reasons."

What has he done again? He (perhaps - it's disputed - maybe it's Iran in fact) used some chemical agent in a (single) border fight during the Iran - Iraq war? (Chemicals which Iraq had been helped to aquire by noone else than Chiney himself...)

Or that he invaded Kuwait after having warned it would do so and had been replied by the US that "we don't have a protection treaty with respect to Kuwait." (Knowing that Iraq never even got close to invading Saudi Arabia - all contrary evidence has been shown to be fake.) (It's interesting to note that, in spite of all road maps, the invasion of Gaza and the West Bank don't stir up this Administration's feelings in a similar way.)

"Well, Blair *is* considered a liar in the U.K. Schroeder *is* considered a liar in Germany (there are even Top 40 songs written about it). Chirac *is* considered a liar here in France."

Aren't we going after Saddam because he has lied "over, over and over again" (TM) to the Security Council? Excuse the rest of the world to think about double-standards... Oh, that's right, hegemony is about establishing the right to double standards, for the hegemon that is, of course. KQED.

"Now that doesn't mean the war is wrong. Just because you've lied doesn't mean there isn't a truth somewhere justifying the war. But I would like to know what it is."

The following insights of Charles Davis (I thank www.andrewsullivan.com for this particular item) in the very liberal National Catholic Reporter might be of some value. Davis used to believe that there was no justification for invading Iraq. He has now changed his mind!:

"Last September, I wrote a column for NCR that opposed the coming war. I said at the time that the United States was overstating the threat from Iraq while downplaying more real dangers. But I am revisiting the issue because I now believe that to not use force to back up the many U.N. resolutions over the past decade could lead to more serious injury to the world than to maintain the current situation of phony containment of Iraq."

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/031403/031403r.htm

"From Peacenik to War Supporter

DOV BURT LEVY
Jewish Journal North of Boston

Dov Burt Levy is a columnist who splits his time between Salem, Mass., and Jerusalem. He can be reached at dblevy@columnist.com.
levy

Changing from an inveterate peacenik to a supporter of this war against Saddam Hussein, and telling you, makes this the most difficult column I have ever written.

Between 1960 and 1980, in the United States, I marched for civil rights, against poverty, against the Vietnam War.

In Israel after 1980, 1 marched with Peace Now and in other demonstrations supporting the peace initiatives of Prime Ministers Peres, Rabin and Barak.

But earlier this month, when opponents of a war against Saddam mounted protests all over the world, I stayed home. In fact, I had to admit to myself that if war was the way to remove Saddam, I was for it.

My previous activism was based on the belief that policy and behavioral change could be achieved by peaceful confrontation. I believed wars were immoral (still do).

Most important, I believed that opponents, deep down, were rational human beings who knew their self-interest and would sooner or later make the best decisions for their own health and well-being and for their people.

Not only Saddam, but also Arafat, Bin Laden and some other Arab leaders have shown me that they don’t think that way. The evidence?
• Arafat’s turn to suicide bombers after negotiations with Barak and Clinton at Camp David,
• The mass murder of 9-11,
• The Arab masses dancing with joy upon hearing about the thousands who died on 9/11.
• Also, dismembering journalist Daniel Pearl after holding him captive for a week, sending teen-age Arab girls as homicide bombers to kill Israeli teenagers.

This fundamental disregard for human life extends not just to Israelis, Americans or Westerners. Dozens of Arab men every year kill their daughters or sisters in the name of family honor and their actions are sanctioned by the state and religious authorities.

I should have believed Arafat’s speeches in Arabic proclaiming that all negotiations were just a step in the road to throwing the Jews into the sea and not been seduced by the smiles and handshakes of his Western tours.

Be clear that this is not an Israeli issue. Israel is on a war footing and can literally build a wall to keep most terrorists out. Terrorism — supported, financed, and armed by Iraq (and some others) — against the openly accessible United States threatens American people and institutions.

This time, in this war, Saddam and his minions are the issue. Saddam— who personally executes political enemies, had no qualms about gassing 25,000 Iraqi citizens, and was willing to sacrifice a half million soldiers (many as young as age 12) in his 10-year war with Iran — is nothing less than a pathological killer.

Weapons of mass destruction in Saddam’s hands would be a tragic mistake for the rest of the world."

DT: Thanks for the link. Agree that is about the only reason to accept war, W.M.D.s. and their proliferation. The problem with this is one has to trust the Administration (or at least *someone*) that this will actually be a danger, i.e. that (1) terrorists won't be able to do the same thing themselves or easily find another source; (2) Saddam Hussein will actually give them to terrorists before - say - he dies of natural death; and (3) our solution - going in without very little world support - is not going to create an even greater problem with (1) than it is now.

JPS: "Aren't we going after Saddam because he has lied "over, over and over again" (TM) to the Security Council?"

I'm afraid your question seems so obviously baseless that I just don't understand why you would ask it as if it is some worthy objection. It would be of course the type and nature of lies that Saddam Hussein is accused of, and not just that he is a liar per se.

"1) terrorists won't be able to do the same thing themselves or easily find another source"

"Saddam Hussein will actually give them to terrorists before - say - he dies of natural death"

I'm convinced that he already has! The United States had an odd couple relationship with Joseph Stalin during WWII. Even the Ayatollah Khomeini cooperated with Marxist radicals when it suited his purposes. Never underestimate the importance of the Mid Eastern proverb: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This is along held tradition in that part of the world. They will kill each other tomorrow, buy today there are infidels to destroy.

"our solution - going in without very little world support - is not going to create an even greater problem with (1) than it is now."

The exact opposite will happen. We will be respected only by our willingness to use force. Much of the world is envious of the United States. They wish to see us with mud on our face. We cannot allow their childishly immature attitudes deter us from doing the right thing. I’ve been warning people for a very some time that France is no longer an ally. A number of people considered me to be something of a nut case. Now they agree with me.

I normally laugh at Thomson, but that on this issue he has so many supporters--Boucher, Schwarz, Allen, etc.--indicates that there truly is a serious resurgence of Ugly Americanism. Saddam Hussein makes a nice whipping boy, but his existence cannot mitigate the fact that we are about to launch an unprovoked, unilateral attack on another country.

If an ally is someone who always does what you tell him to do and never tries to stop you even if you are about to drive over a cliff, then I agree France is no longer an ally. If the U.S. wants to rely on the support of small, economically desperate countries whose leaders have much to gain and little to lose by supporting our government, and who will therefore support anything we tell them to, then so be it. The previous governments of "New Europe"--Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia--were on whose side in World War II? Do we really think allies such as those can substitute for the larger countries of Europe?

We will be respected for our willingness to use force regardless of what the rest of the world says? Yeah, I guess in the same way that a wife respects the husband who beats her every drunken weekend. "Let them hate us, as long as they fear us." I'm not very fond of Krugman myself, but on this occasion he chose the correct classical quote.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 25, 2003
War for Peace? It Worked in My Country
By JOSÉ RAMOS-HORTA

ILI, East Timor

I often find myself counting how many of us are left in this world. One recent morning my two surviving brothers and I had coffee together. And I found myself counting again. We were seven brothers and five sisters, another large family in this tiny Catholic country.

One brother died when he was a baby. Antonio, our oldest brother, died in 1992 of lack of medical care. Three other siblings were murdered in our country's long conflict with Indonesia. One, a younger sister, Maria Ortencia, died on Dec. 19, 1978, killed by a rocket fired from a OV-10 Bronco aircraft, which the United States had sold to Indonesia. She was buried on a majestic mountaintop and her grave was tended by the humble people of the area for 20 years.

Early in September of last year, I went through the heart-wrenching process of unearthing the improvised grave of our sister, whom I last saw when she was 18. As her body was exhumed, I noticed that the back of her head and one side of her face had been blown off. She must have died instantly. We reburied our sister in the cemetery in the capital, Dili. Two other siblings who were killed, our brothers Nuno and Guilherme, were executed by Indonesian soldiers in 1977. With little information on the area where they were killed and disposed of, we have no hope of recovering their bodies for a dignified burial.

There is hardly a family in my country that has not lost a loved one. Many families were entirely wiped out during the decades of occupation by Indonesia and the war of resistance against it. The United States and other Western nations contributed to this tragedy. Some bear a direct responsibility because they helped Indonesia by providing military aid. Others were accomplices through indifference and silence. But all redeemed themselves. In 1999, a global peacekeeping force helped East Timor secure its independence and protect its people. It is now a free nation.

But I still acutely remember the suffering and misery brought about by war. It would certainly be a better world if war were not necessary. Yet I also remember the desperation and anger I felt when the rest of the world chose to ignore the tragedy that was drowning my people. We begged a foreign power to free us from oppression, by force if necessary.

So I follow with some consternation the debate on Iraq in the United Nations Security Council and in NATO. I am unimpressed by the grandstanding of certain European leaders. Their actions undermine the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator: the threat of the use of force.

Critics of the United States give no credit to the Bush administration's aggressive strategy, even though it is the real reason that Iraq has allowed weapons inspectors to return and why Baghdad is cooperating a bit more, if it indeed is at all.

The antiwar demonstrations are truly noble. I know that differences of opinion and public debate over issues like war and peace are vital. We enjoy the right to demonstrate and express opinions today because East Timor is an independent democracy — something we didn't have during a 25-year reign of terror. Fortunately for all of us, the age of globalization has meant that citizens have a greater say in almost every major issue.

But if the antiwar movement dissuades the United States and its allies from going to war with Iraq, it will have contributed to the peace of the dead. Saddam Hussein will emerge victorious and ever more defiant. What has been accomplished so far will unravel. Containment is doomed to fail. We cannot forget that despots protected by their own elaborate security apparatus are still able to make decisions.

Saddam Hussein has dragged his people into at least two wars. He has used chemical weapons on them. He has killed hundreds of thousands of people and tortured and oppressed countless others. So why, in all of these demonstrations, did I not see one single banner or hear one speech calling for the end of human rights abuses in Iraq, the removal of the dictator and freedom for the Iraqis and the Kurdish people? If we are going to demonstrate and exert pressure, shouldn't it be focused on the real villain, with the goal of getting him to surrender his weapons of mass destruction and resign from power? To neglect this reality, in favor of simplistic and irrational anti-Americanism, is obfuscating the true debate on war and peace.

I agree that the Bush administration must give more time to the weapons inspectors to fulfill their mandate. The United States is an unchallenged world power and will survive its enemies. It can afford to be a little more patient. Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has proved himself to be a strong mediator and no friend of dictators. He and a group of world leaders should use this time to persuade Saddam Hussein to resign and go into exile. In turn, Saddam Hussein could be credited with preventing another war and sparing his people. But even this approach will not work without the continued threat of force.

Abandoning such a threat would be perilous. Yes, the antiwar movement would be able to claim its own victory in preventing a war. But it would have to accept that it also helped keep a ruthless dictator in power and explain itself to the tens of thousands of his victims.

History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation. A respected Kosovar intellectual once told me how he felt when the world finally interceded in his country: "I am a pacifist. But I was happy, I felt liberated, when I saw NATO bombs falling."

José Ramos-Horta, East Timor's minister of foreign affairs and cooperation, shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If an ally is someone who always does what you tell him to do and never tries to stop you even if you are about to drive over a cliff, then I agree France is no longer an ally."

Nobody is taking France to task because its government is offering a well thought out dissent of President Bush's policy towards Iraq. Americans should even welcome an opinion that males us think twice before implementing our plans. No, the fact is we sense that France’s position is premised upon envy, bitterness, and possibly even a fear about what will be found in the files in Saddam Hussein’s military offices. The French are acting like appeasers too timid to oppose evil and handle the responsibilities normally associated with being a mature world leader. Also, why are certain people assuming that the United States is always wrong---and the French are the epitome of sound judgment and objective analysis?

“Where are the babies? One day either Bush or Blair will claim that Iraq must be invaded because Iraqis are hungry...”

We must thank Jean-Philippe Stijns for his excellent suggestion. The Bush administration should emphasis this important aspect a little bit more. The odds are very high that we will indeed save a lot of these peoples lives.

It is truly puzzling that Mr. Chirac has chosen his friendship with Saddam Hussein over France's long standing alliance with the US, especially considering that Saddam will soon be dead or in prison.

In other words (cf Mr. Thomson a few posts up) the US has a policy of unite and conquer?

The question remains: if the case for war on Iraq is so clear, why does the Administration think it has to lie about it?

"I'm afraid your question seems so obviously baseless that I just don't understand why you would ask it as if it is some worthy objection."

Is it possible to make a more pointless point???

"It would be of course the type and nature of lies that Saddam Hussein is accused of, and not just that he is a liar per se."

I see: the Administration makes good lies, and Saddam makes bad lies. He hides WMD's we can't find and, thus, the Administration has to make up some evidence, for the good cause, of course. Surely, there ought to be limits to democracy?

It's a hugely refreshing break not to have to beat Thomson and Willingham over the head with the same old arguments. While I admire Ramos-Horta and respect his position (Joe W, thanks for posting the article) I cannot agree with it. A few things he forgets to mention:

(1) East Timor was invaded by the Suharto government, which had taken power in a murderous military coup that was tacitly approved by the Johnson administration. Its invasion of East Timor was also given tacit approval by Nixon and Kissinger. I have little reason to believe that whatever government the Bushies install in Iraq will be more democratic than that of Suharto.

(2) East Timor was one of the few things that Clinton's foreign policy got right. Fortunately for Clinton, he did not have to threaten to bomb either East Timor or Jakarta back into the stone age in order to succeed whereas the Bush adm. is talking about doing just that with Baghdad; and please note that Clinton moved in only after the people of Indonesia had thrown out Suharto on their own.

(3) The vast majority of anti-war demonstrators are not motivated by anti-Americanism but by simple distrust of the Bush administration. Again, I would have fewer misgivings about this war if I really thought that the current adm. was interested in installing a truly democratic government. The history of the men running this administration indicates otherwise, and Ramos-Horta doesn't seem to realize this.

(4) Given that the U.S. has not made a convincing case on the WMD's/AlQaeda issue, unilateral military attack against another country is a highly dangerous precedent and is therefore justified (in the eyes of the world community) only in case there is genocide or ethnic cleansing going on. The Clinton adm. failed to act in Rwanda and acted in Bosnia/Kosovo, though it should have tried to go through the UN first and then gone in anyway if the UN did not approve. If I recall correctly, they did get UN approval for action in East Timor. Right now, Saddam Hussein, however brutal and despicable a dictator he might be, is not engaged in genocide or ethnic cleansing.

In short, though I respect Ramos-Horta's position a great deal more than that of Thomson, Allen or Willingham, I am still not convinced. Nor will most of the war's opponents, I think.

andres: "I normally laugh at Thomson, but that on this issue he has so many supporters--Boucher, Schwarz, Allen, etc.--indicates that there truly is a serious resurgence of Ugly Americanism."

I'm not a supporter of DT, and if you read my posting(s), you will see I'm not a supporter of the war. But hey, if you reason as carefully as you read...

JPS: "the Administration makes good lies, and Saddam makes bad lies." Well now you're showing a bit more subtlety in your thinking, instead of, "Bush's a liar, Saddam's a liar, therefore...", which you were making in your first post as apparently some incredibly perceptive thrust. Which is not to say that the Administration has made "good lies", but your argument (in the first post) is no good unless you speak of the nature of the lies of the two. If you can flesh this out, then maybe you will get somewhere.

The French-bashers: I don't appreciate the French as a general rule, and as a general rule I do bash them myself (!) on Iraq, but I do think they are not as diabolical as all that. One thing the French are worried about is the process, rather than the issue itself. They are worried about the question, Who decides? If Iraq is a threat to U.S. security, then no one denies that the U.S. has the right to intervene. But the Bush Administration (and Tony Blair) have made a cock-up of the evidence that they have given to the public, and so the best we really have at this point is that Iraq is a threat to his own people and to regional security. In that case, Who decides? One country, even if it is the Greatest Superpower Ever Known? Or some collective body, such as the U.N. or N.A.T.O.? The French, very naturally, prefer the latter, because it gives them some say (and of course in the case of the U.N., veto power). A large part of the Bush Administration's problems is that it didn't respect this process very well - and the French felt snubbed. And then, for the falling out that occurred in January or February - I wasn't privy to the discussions so I can't be sure: American arrogance, French arrogance, both?

You're right--I wasn't reading carefully. Apologies.

We are about to witness leaders annoucing reasons for a war, listening for 6 months that all proofs presented for those reasons are forged, not refuting it, and then prosecuting the war anyway.

Some say that lieing in defence of a policy does not prove that the policy is wrong. Hm. At the very least, such lies strongly hint that the policy is wrong. Responce to the lies, if any, can provide additional hints.

Actually, UAVs can have their practical ranges extended a great deal by being delivered into an area by balloon - "drift cruise". The balloons are inaccurate, but they only have to reach a target zone and let the UAVs do the rest. It's a development of a concept that goes back to arctic exploration.

Oh, and DT's "sensing" of France's motives not only don't analyse the motives, their motives have nothing to do with the downsides to us others of US unilateralism anyway. And nobody is assuming that the USA is always wrong. It's just that - without further evidence, and having to take a bet - on past track record that IS the way to bet. Also, such evidence and analysis that we HAVE seen does not indicate that the USA is right this time. The prudent path is NOT to do this, since it releases poison from a burst cyst and even the "best" case outcome is US hegemony which is actually a bad thing for everybody else.

andres writes:

"Again, I would have fewer misgivings about this war if I really thought that the current adm. was interested in installing a truly democratic government".

I think there is reason to believe that President Bush wants there to be a democratic government in Iraq, because by and large democratic governments are not a threat to others. It is extremely rare in modern times for a democracy to attack a democracy.

So Mr. Bush wants there to be a democratic government in Iraq, not because he's an idealist, or an especially nice person, but because it is in the interest of the US for there to be such. And looking out for the interests of the US is part of his job description.

That said, nobody can "install a democratic government", or in any case one that lasts. That is up to the Iraq people themselves. The most the US can do is to try to tilt the playing field in the democrats' direction.

What people of all political persuasions who care about the Iraqi people need to do is to agitate and lobby for support to liberal forces in post Saddam Iraq, and for generous assistance in rebuilding the country. The outcome is not cast in concrete. Instead of just calling Bush names, we all need to pitch in make sure that the Iraqis don't fall victim to the notorious shortness of the American attention span.

And people accuse pacifists of being naive. Joe, a _truly democratic_ government in Iraq will make the following demands on the Bush adm:

--Autonomy for the northern Kurdish region, even if this strongly displeases Iran, and more importantly, Turkey. Not to mention at least partial Kurdish control of the Mosul region oilfields.

--Iraq should be able to sell its oil at full world market prices rather than being forced to sell it at discounts to U.S. oil companies run by Bush/Cheney cronies.

--Peaceful relations between Iraq and its neighbors, which precludes attempts to destabilize Saudi Arabia and Iran.

--U.S. troops should _leave_ as soon as Iraq is sufficiently stable so that Iraq's own troops can maintain internal order.

--Iraq should be able to make an independent foreign policy, which no doubt will continue to include solidarity with the Palestinian people and support for a separate Palestinian state.

Do you really believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and co. (never mind Bush or whatever other front man is actually President) will actually stomach such demands? I seriously doubt it. In particular, they've stated that they wish to use Iraq as a base from which to destabilize both Iran and Saudi Arabia, which does not imply a new era of peaceful cooperation in the Mid East. I'm betting that Iraq's new government, like Karzai's in Afghanistan, will have a democratic facade but will actually be a U.S. puppet. And for this thousands of Iraquis will pay with their lives. Foreign Realpolitik is vicious in any era.

J-PS thinks Bush is trying to show that only “funny little France” is opposed to US goals in Iraq. Andrew B answers that the French are focused on the process while the US wants the soul prerogative to decide in matters which seem to be limited to regional security and domestic abuse of Iraqi citizens. Afraid I have to side with Andrew on this one. There has been lots of talk of oil, contracts, embarrassing evidence, … on and on, in regard to the motives of both France and the US (and Russia, …on and on). That all seems small potatoes to me.

France has a position in the world, one that is at stake when France cannot compete militarily or economically with the US. France’s UN veto provides it major power status, but only as long as the US cannot ignore the UN at will. This complicates matters, but one thing is clear – letting the US run rampant without challenge marginalizes France. Chirac has been very clear about this, saying that since the US has declined to lead the West, he’ll do it. In other words, rather than drift quietly into minor power status, Chirac intends to set up an alternate poll to the US within the Western alliance. The complication that the US intends to go over the head of the UN can, France hopes, can be fixed. If the cost to the US and her allies is high enough, then Bush II, or his successors and allies, can be taught the lesson that Bush I understood – don’t be so arrogant, listen to your allies.

How did what is really a longstanding Western rivalry come to a head? The Bush doctrine looks like the culprit. Bush said the US will become more assertive (France wants us less assertive), more preventative (in contravention of “just war” notions on which the UN and Western institutions have long relied for guidance), in a quest for both our own security (no quarrel there) and to spread our values (which are sufficiently different from those held by Chirac’s France to prompt opposition). The first major event to be justified in a “Bush doctrine” manner is preventative war against Iraq. The US/UK treatment of France today (March 17) and over the weekend hints that the challenge is understood in Washington. France alone is singled out, despite the US gathering only 4 counted votes on the Security Council, against 11 opposed or undecided. France takes all the gut punches. France opposes Bush as an important Western nation, inside the EU, inside the alliance, inside our culture. No other nation can muster such a consequential opposition to the world Bush wants to create.

‘They Don’t Speak for Me’
An Iraqi refugee says stars who decry action against Hussein prolong the abuse of a people
By Esra Naama

Esra Naama of San Diego is a member of Women for a Free Iraq. Web site: www.womenforiraq.org.

I am a refugee from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

When Martin Sheen, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and Barbra Streisand speak about the Iraqi people, they are not speaking about people like me, who are Shiite Muslims -- the largest religious group in Iraq that is nonetheless forced to live as second-class citizens under the Sunni regime of Hussein and his Baath Party.

When I was 10, I fled Iraq with my mother and four siblings after the failure of the 1991 uprising against Hussein. My father, a former Iraqi army colonel, was one of the leaders of the uprising and helped organize the resistance forces that fought against Hussein. As a pharmacist with knowledge of military bases in the southern part of Iraq, he took crates of medicine and supplies from army hospitals to the local civilian hospitals. And he attacked every vestige of Hussein’s control in my hometown of Al-Diwaniya; he tore down posters of Hussein and restored the old names on the hospitals and public buildings that had been named for Hussein.

At that time, we believed that the coalition forces would come to our assistance. But within a few short days, Hussein brutally crushed us. In the months that followed, tens of thousands of my fellow Shiite Muslims were executed. Entire families were killed. Bodies were left to hang on trees and men were tortured in public. These are the scenes that I relive in my nightmares.

My father went into hiding to escape execution. My mother had no idea whether he was dead or alive. She knew that if Hussein’s security forces could not find him, they would come after her children, and we would be imprisoned and tortured to lure my father out of hiding. When they took away my 18-year-old cousin, my mother decided we had to leave. We set off on a long journey, moving to new safe houses every night, until we finally reached the Rafha refugee camp in Saudi Arabia. The camp embodied all the indifference and cruelty with which Arab dictatorships treat their people. We stayed there for nearly two years. We were lucky.

Eventually, my father found his way to the same camp and we were blessed to receive refugee status in the United States on Sept. 17, 1992. My family celebrates this date as our new birthday, the day that we were able to begin our lives as full human beings, with dignity and hope. Growing up in the United States, I often thought about the people we left behind. We lost three relatives. My best friend’s father, an army general, was executed for unknown reasons. I have friends who have lost 50 relatives.

Like many others, I am dedicated to ending the suffering of the Iraqi people. They are prisoners in their own land and they yearn for freedom and the simple things that we take for granted -- democracy, freedom of speech, the right to vote. America is their model for the future of Iraq, if only America and the world would help them build it.

I am an American now, and I have been educated to respect the right to free expression by any citizen, a right no member of my family enjoyed when we lived in Iraq. I know from personal experience that the Hollywood actors who decry action against Hussein are really opposing the liberation of the Iraqi people. I wish they would praise the American troops in the field or just stay silent.

There is only one measure of comfort to be found in their statements: When Iraq is finally liberated, these actors will learn that they have never spoken for the people of Iraq.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-oe-naama17mar17,1,6386032.story

A nice article, but the only thing it proves is that Saddam Hussein won't last a second now that the shooting is about to start. What Ms. Naama may not know is how much support that successive U.S. administrations gave to Hussein in the 1980's, and that it originally supported the 1960 Baathist coup which led to the murder of the King and to the eventual rise of Saddam Hussein himself. Sadly, I think that Iraq's history is about to be repeated.