Letter to ROCKYMOUNTAINNEWS/ INCREASING THE RISK/
Smoker or not, you run some small 'background' risk of lung-cancer; the objection against smoking is that it markedly INCREASES this risk. Some people can't grasp this point. /
"The idea that a war with Iraq would provoke terrorism is insane", says M.Griffith (letter: NOT ASHAMED,28Feb). "Sept. 11 proved that terrrorists need no provocation." But the worry is that the invasion will markedly INCREASE the risk of terrorist attacks on our homeland: heightened Muslim rage worldwide, at pictures of slaughtered Iraqi children, will make it easier for Osama-types to recruit 'martyrs' eager to die killing Americans; and in his death-throes, Saddam will donate supergerms to the terrorists that they didn't have before.
Griffiths should not be ashamed to be American; perhaps he should be a little embarrassed at his loose grip on logic./ For closer analysis, see below.

 
EXACTLY HOW DO OUTRAGES
VS. THE POWERLESS
INCREASE TERRORISM?
Observers around the world warn that invading Iraq, blowing Iraqi children to bits, will heighten the dangers of terrorist attacks against The West, especially against America.
How exactly does this work?/
Let's look at the Ulster, Ireland case for illumination: The large Catholic minority in Ulster was resentful of British/Protestant unfair exploitation; but as is usually the case, the large majority of Catholics were passively resentful. At the other extreme, a quite small minority of IRA terrorists was ready to risk their lives, to bomb and kill the Enemy--but the level of terrorism was manageable by the occupying power./
Then in 1972 came the Bloody Sunday 'massacre' in Derry-Town. British paratroopers ruthlessly machine-gunned peaceful Catholic protesters. Things changed dramatically./
Think of 3 concentric circles: the big outside circle (A) contains the passive masses of resentful Catholics. Inside, a MUCH smaller circle (B) of REALLY resentful Catholics were NOT willing to die and kill themselves, but were active sympathizers with the IRA: They contributed money to the terrorists (sometimes from Boston, USA!), they sheltered the terrorists, and helped them hide their weapons. Then of course, inside the (B) group, was the very small circle (C) of 'hard men', risk-taking killers./
The Derry 'massacre' outraged Catholics all over Ulster (and in Boston!) Some passive (A) people moved to the active-sympathizer stage (B), began financing and sheltering the 'hard men'. Meanwhile some men already in the (B) circle were enraged enough to lose their fear and move into the (C) circle of risk-taking killers. The members of the (B) and (C) circles were much increased; so more terrorist actions were made possible, and indeed more happened.
The bombings weren't just in Belfast; great buildings in London were toppled; two bombs barely missed the British Prime-Minister. No one had as much reason to regret the Derry 'massacre' as did the British and Ulster-Protestant populations./
THE PRESENT CASE: Somehow, (by stupidity on our part and theirs) America has become the object of resentful hatred by many out of the worldwide population of over 1 billion Muslims! Practically all of them were, and are, in the (A) circle of passive-resentful people. Osama Bin Laden was the strategic genius who managed to organize a relatively large (B) group of fundamentalists--still a tiny proportion of world-Muslims--willing to finance and cooperate with the few active terrorists (C), who were able to mount surprisingly effective attacks on U.S.interests overseas. Then came the stupendous 9/11 attack on our Homeland./
The (C) group of Muslims had two advantages over the corresponding IRA (C) group:
1) The Ulster Catholic Church officially opposed terrorism, while many Muslim clergy covertly support it;
(some Muslims think they will be rewarded in Paradise for killing 'enemy infidels'; Catholics haven't thought that way since the early Dark Ages.)
and (2) Catholics would risk getting killed while attacking, but, with the Catholic horror at suicide, they would never explicitly blow themselves up while attacking the enemy. (In America, the Catholic Tim McVeigh tried to escape after he bombed the Oklahoma City building.) Suicide-murderers, on the other hand, have a great tactical advantage; they don't have to waste effort on devising get-away measures.
INCREASING THE RISKS:
When we attacked Muslim Afghanistan, we mobilized many passive Muslims into action.
For instance, thousands of young Pakistanis walked across the mountains to enlist (pointlessly) in the Taliban/al Quaeda cause--they moved to the (C) circle. You can bet that many tens of thousands (or millions?) more of Muslims worldwide, moved from (A) to (B). to actively sympathize and help the actual warriors/terrorists./
Now we are ready to attack Muslim Iraq with superhuman, subhuman violence, launching 3000 bombs/missiles in the first 2 days. Humanitarian experts says that millions of Iraqis will perish, from war-wounds or starvation./
Should we assume that the billion Muslims worldwide will largely ignore this offense against fellow- Muslims? See below [24 Feb] the story of a small Chinese town of Muslims, where there are no modern conveniences; nevertheless, the villagers are aware of our Afghan 'murders' and of our far worse plans for Iraq--and they are very angry--"Nationality doesn't count," they say, "What counts is the Muslim Family!" A very large proportion of Muslim populations are destitute, frustrated young males, easy to mobilize for violence. Many others will be angry enough to help the terrorists. /
In other words, our invasion is likely to move millions of Muslims from passive circle (A) to active-helper circle (B)--and hundreds or thousands from (B) to (C), converting them into active Martyr-murderers, with their rage focussed mainly at America.
These terrorists can get at us. There are literally dozens of ways our Open Society is vulnerable to terrorist attacks. We can't eliminate such threats completely; but we could mitigate the worst threats by various (expensive) counter-measures. For instance, we could have outfitted our airlines vs. shoulder-launched missiles, for about $20 billion. But we haven't even made a move in that direction; the retrofitting would take about 2 years. We could enforce with anti-aircraft batteries the 'no-fly' zones near our 104 vulnerable n-plant waste-ponds--but no. And we could be recruiting and training thousands of police, firemen and medical technicians as 'first-responders'--which would be made easier by our high unemployment-rate. Instead, our cash-strapped local authorities, with no extra financing from the feds, are often laying off police and fire personnel!
After the next attack (which might be far worse than 9/11), our populace might go crazy and cuddle even closer to the right-wing monsters who are putting us pointlessly in such added peril. But later historians will record who was really at fault.

 
(More on) OVER 90 TONS OF GOLD EACH DAY /
(over $1 billion per day / gold=$350 per ounce)/
to Pentagon FOR ATTACK/
but DUCT-TAPE FOR HOME DEFENSE:
ABC NEWS (27Feb) said that one reason for lowering the 'threat-level' signals (a fiercely-debated decision) was that the higher-level warning involved home-security precautions that were 'too expensive'. [also, USATODAY,28Feb] / On the same broadcast we heard about the tens of billions of dollars that would go to pay off Turkey (which is still holding out!) and also to pay off the small countries on the UN Security Council to vote against their national consciences to approve the invasion. Why are we beyond surprise?/
We hear that the U.S. is not making actual dollar offers to the small Council voters, just saying that "We'll be nice later to countries that are nice to us." The French ambassador to UN said that as of today, a Council majority sides with France, not America. Maybe we're being too subtle--as a sign of the deep trust felt worldwide for the Bush-team, it is said that the Turkish authorities who are selling out their people demanded their billions as cash in advance--and they got it--from a country that can't afford adequate home security..[P.Krugman,NYTIMES 27Feb]
Later (24Mar) EVEN WITH OUR PAYOFFS, WE COULDN'T PRESSURE TURKEY OR THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL LITTLE COUNTRIES TO GO OUR WAY!

 
TECHNICAL INNOVATORS: HEROES OR DILBERT-DUPES?
Would I want my children to be creative technical innovators? I'd know their innovations could do much good. I'd also know that they can't decide what research they can engage in; expensive technical research is directed by the business or military leaders who control the money../
I'd also know they can't control the ultimate use that will be made of their innovations. Nuclear bombs (now fitting in pickup trucks, constructed without great technical skill from readily available materials/USATODAY 27 Feb ) and war-germs, now available to terrorists and rogue states--these are the two most dramatic kinds of dangerous innovations./
All really great innovators should realize that their discoveries could aid some madmen to destroy much of humanity(e.g., the people in the U.S. Government, who have pioneered practically all 'Darth Vader' weapons)./ They should recall this imagined prayer from a fairly decent scientist: "O Lord, may my discovery save the world ! failing that, may it not destroy the world; failing that, may l get the Nobel Prize before it does."

 
COALITION OF THE WILLING: The hawks here keep referring to Bush's 'coalition of the willing'. USATODAY (25 Feb) reports that these miserable leaders--most visibly, the Turks!--are usually responding to U.S. bribes or pressures, not expressing their honest opinions; (This also applies to any puny nations on the Security Council that will be pressured to vote for the American war-resolution.) Also, aside from foolish Blair's Britain and Turkey and Kuwait, these 'paper allies' will contribute almost nothing to the effort--and the peoples of these 3 countries strongly oppose the war. One observer aptly calls this the 'coalition of the UNwilling' ! /
This will basically be a 'GO-IT-ALONE WAR'. One cartoonist has Pres.Bush saying, "We don't need help from the rest of the World; one of Saturn's moons has come aboard into our Coalition of the Willing."

 
W'S PR TRIUMPH: The WASHINGTON POST reports that US embassies around the world are warning of the astonishing surge of worldwide loathing for George Bush personally: peoples all over are saying that he is a bigger danger to the world than is Saddam. (Knowing this, and realizing W's weak intellect, Saddam has challenged him to a personal debate.) This has got to be one of the great PR triumphs ever for the White House!

 
STUBBORN IGNORANCE: It was depressing to read, in the new NYT/CBS polls, increased support for the invasion. Not that polls make any difference; the invasion will take place, whatever. But our respect for about half of the American people must sag. One could guess that one major impetus for new war-support is pig-headed American anger at foreign criticism. (One Coloradoan has suggested that we move the bones of WWII GIs back home from France !)/
U.S. hawks might reflect (a) that they themselves typically know little about the outside world, and (b) that practically all the peoples of the world--not just the French!--disapprove of our cowboy adventure, plus the Pope and the world's other religious leaders. Do our hawks ever think they might be wrong?/
(41% of Americans believe Saddam was behind 9/11 attack !--which not even the Bushies have claimed.
Paranoids hate to believe that they face 2 distinct enemies; it's more reassuring to collapse them into one--but what happens when Saddam is destroyed, and the terrorists are stronger than ever?)
KOREA: Meanwhile the bungling Bush team provokes the North Koreans ever closer into attacking our 37,000 hostage GIs. (N.K. just defiantly tested a new missile; South Korea is peddling away from its American alliance as fast as it can.) Recently our government 1) cut off food aid to N.K.; (2) then restored it, but at a lower level. Smooth! / On 27Feb we heard that North Korea defied Americans again by restarting their n-plant. /
USATODAY,28feb, devoted a full page to the horrors of a new Korean war. If N.K. strikes first, a million people would die right away , including thousands of Americans. Into this bubbling stew, the Bush-team inserts military threats (which would include a first-strike by U.S.,justifying a previous 1st strike by N.K.) and personal insults from one Head of State to another! /
Let's console ourselves that about half the U.S. Populace have stayed sane (especially the Democratic voters, if not their craven leaders), agreeing with the World in scorning the Bush savages.
----------------------------------------
COMMENT FROM J: Americans are told so often that what an individual does in his individuality is always ok. Be yourself. Since most people can't be individuals anyway, they mistake themselves for something that they belong to, such as a nation. Too bad. Loving America and believing America to be right aren't the same thing.

 
ANGRY WORLD MUSLIMS: The London OBSERVER recently ran a story about a backward Muslim village in China. No modern conveniences; but they know about, and are angry at, the US bombing of Muslims in Afghanistan, and our plan to attack Muslims in Iraq. /
Historians will shake their heads at the Bush-team's stupidity in enraging still further 1 billion Muslims throughout the world, making it easier for Osama types to recruit terrorists eager to die while attacking America./ (Sending thousands of GIs to the Phillipines to fight the Muslim minority, violating that country's constitution, will not go unnoticed by hundreds of millions of Muslims in Indonesia next door.)

 
WHY AM I ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN FOLLY?/
People on the Bush team dream of our setting the world right in a New World Order, in a wise, benevolent new Empire. But America is not worldly-wise. As a people, we don't care much about the rest of the world; unsurprisingly, we don't know much about it. Our typical college graduates are quite ignorant about history, geography, and foreign languages and cultures./
That might be OK if we had a political elite who were knowledgeable and prudent about world affairs; but there is no reason to think this is true. On 9/11,after several years of warning about dangers from Al Quaeda, only 6 people in the FBI understood Arabic; the CIA was not much better off--and there is little reason to think our policy-makers are much more sophisticated now. /
Jeb Bush (says FOX news) (Governor, brother and son of Presidents, with the best U.S. education-opportunities available to him) just referred to 'the Republic of Spain" while visiting that country. Spain, of course, hasn't been a Republic --except, perhaps, for a brief interval just after Franco's death--for 60 years.) /
It seems to me we should withdraw from any attempt at world leadership. This attitude may be denounced as Isolationism; but that's better than bold, Interventionist action based on ignorant, isolationist thinking. (Everyone should see the new movie THE QUIET AMERICAN to understand how this combination led us into the Vietnam quagmire. /
But we needn't go back that far to see U.S. folly in action: It stretches belief to realize our policy in Korea: we let North Korea build up a terrific attack-force just North of Seoul; at the same time we stationed 37,000 GIs near Seoul, within artillery-range, for 50 years--who now have become hostages to N.K.'s marginally-sane intentions. The more we think about these adventures overseas, the more FORTRESS AMERICA seems sensible.

 
INCREASING RISK: /One-half a page of NYT was devoted (12 feb) to a tired column by Bill Keller presenting the usual prowar slogans ('facing Iraq war perils now or postponing them', portraying antiwar people as motivated by fear). / One interesting bit of rhetoric was addressed to the concern that the invasion will increase the risk of terrorism against our homeland (a concern expressed by CIA). "Al Quaeda terrorists", says Keller sagely, "do not need the pretexts of an Iraq war to come after us. They will attack us, regardless. We know this, because they have done it."/ Keller ignores the factor of INCREASED risk from the invasion. Right now, the terrorists don't seem to have access to Iraq's supergerms--if they did, we'd know it already. In Saddam's death-throes he may donate these to terrorists eager to infect themselves and Americans. Also, Keller admits that the invasion will increase the number of potential recruits for terrorism./
The clever point is that the Bush-hawks know that we can never prove, when the bioattacks come, that they resulted from the INCREASE in risks from the invasion. We must conclude--as we would from their neglect of home-defense--that, in their eagerness to invade, they don't much care about havoc wrought against our homeland./

 
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: Optimistic peace-advocates say that the 4 million people marching last week have put the hawks 'on the defensive'. But that will not prevent the war. The hawks control all 3 branches of Fed.govt.--and they CAN'T back out of the war now. So they will gamble on a cheap,glamorous victory which would probably restore their popularity. Cheap in terms of American casualties--(Americans don't care much about foreign casualties, because for typical Americans, the outside world is not real, it's something on TV.)/
So our arguments about the necessity and prudence of the war are in a sense now moot.
(e.g., we'll never know for sure if Saddam could have been deterred without invasion.)/
What is the remaining usefulness of such arguments? For historians, who will judge this project with calm objectivity. /
THE MORAL PERSPECTIVE HISTORIANS SHOULD USE:
Understand that initiating war is immoral, perhaps always, in itself. In any case, it's presumed immoral unless the preemptive attack can be shown, with antecedent objective probability at the time of decision, to be (a) necessary ('the last resort') and (b) likely to work (unlike the Viet war) and (c) unlikely to backfire in terms of even worse consequences than it was to prevent. /
An obvious point that's often missed: the defenders of such an invasion have the burden of proof; a preemptive strike is to be presumed illegitimate until it is shown to be legitimate. The critics of an invasion do not have to show it's unnecessary or likely to backfire--imagine someone saying, "Sure, I'll refrain from killing people, after you show me why I should!" The only need for argument by critics is to refute justifications offered by the defenders of preemption. /
APPLYING THIS PERSPECTIVE TO THIS CASE:The question here is whether this preemption has been justified in terms of necessity, workability, and lack of backfire. This war will 'work' in the short run--a Giant attacking a crippled pygmy,we will conquer Iraq, one way or the other--but perhaps not without awful U.S. casualties. However, critics' arguments can show future historians that, at the time of decision, there was no real reason to think the war was necessary [Iraq had no missiles to deliver explosives at U.S.; Saddam gave every sign that he could be deterred by our nukes, without invasion, from 'germing' our homeland; and Iraq's neighbors opposed our 'protecting' them by invasion]. /
Also, the historians should note, there was every reason to think that the war risked a backfire of awful consequences in terms of increased risk of terrorism aimed at U.S. Homeland--the risk increased by increased rage among world's Muslims over the slaughter of Iraqis. Our homeland is vulnerable in an incredible number of ways to devastating attacks, by hundreds or thousands of 'martyr-murderers' from all over the world. (We feel like Superman; we just haven't noticed the kryptonite lying around.) This latter point would show that the Bush team were goofy as well as immoral--or else that they were so ruthless they didn't care about damage to U.S. Homeland, if they could just pursue their nutty dream of Empire--(this part of their plan is extremely unlikely to 'work'!) /
THE JUDGMENT OF CONTEMPORARIES:
Either the leaders or the people (or both) of practically every nation in the world have condemned this project. Also, the invasion plans have been morally condemned by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the American Catholic bishops, and the leaders of all the mainline Protestant churches in America./

This much is already clear: that future historians should condemn the Bush team--and their supporters--as wicked and self-destructive. Historians often excuse the crimes of Columbus (and later witch-burning) by saying "These people acted according to the standards of their age." But in this case, historians of a later, more civilized age will note that these war-starters and their supporters violated even the loose standards of their own rough age.

 
AFRAID TO BE A WIMP/ Of course Bush and Blair won't back down in the face of 4 million anti-war marchers, the opposition of Russia, France and China, as well as the poll-demonstration of the opposition of tens of millions around the world. They're afraid to back down. If there's anything less popularly attractive than a war-maker, it's a war-maker who backs down and brings the troops home.
MacBeth said (paraphrasing) , "We are so deep in blood, we might as well go on." These buffoons sail on, hoping the invasion will not be costly in terms of our troops. (They don't care about Iraq casualties.) If their gamble works, they'll be as popular as Bush Senior was for a while after Desert Storm, as Thatcher was after the Falklands victory. Of course the gamble might not work. (It probably won't work in terms of increased terrorism later, but this damage will be hard to pin on them.)
Of what use then is the opposition? Tens of millions of non-Muslims are saying, "This bloody project is NOT IN OUR NAME." Muslim fanatics may not grasp this point, but the opposition preserves our self-respect--and historians will record that in this one fit of humanity's madness, many millions all over the world declined to join the lemmings.

 
WOULD DETERRENCE CONTINUE TO WORK, WITHOUT WAR?
Kenneth Pollack is considered the top defender of Iraq invasion. A bright, competent fan of Pollack has volunteered to summarize P's argument vs. the workability of continued deterrence, as opposed to invasion. I then ventured to answer P's argument. This turned into a lengthy piece (5 pages), too long to express in this format. Anyone who's interested can contact me at DLYONS@LAMAR.COLOSTATE.EDU and get a copy of this dialogue.

 
A NIGHTMARE POSSIBILITY: /Below ('SOME PROTECTOR!') I scold the Bush-team for their folly in provoking a possible first strike by North Korea against our helpless 37,000 troops within artillery range. But this folly is so extreme--consider the personal insults that Bush has hurled at the N.K. leader!--that another thought occurs: suppose the Bushies, horribly enough, WANT this first strike by N.K.!
Consider what would happen after the N.K. First-strike, after the U.S. nuclear retaliation. Americans enraged by the thousands of U.S. deaths would be grimly triumphant at our victorious response. The Bush-team could say, "This is what happens when we (previous administrations) leave a vicious regime alone, free to develop awful weapons. We must not make the same mistake in Iraq--we must attack."
(Of course the threat from N.K. comes not from new awful weapons but from 11,000 traditional artillery tubes; our main folly was leaving 37,000 GIs within artillery range!)/
Also, the Pentagon would have achieved their goal of legitimizing the routine wartime use of nukes. Also the New Empire would have been able to intimidate the world, by this example of what it can do to nations that defy it./
Historians would recall that the Bush-team deliberately provoked the North Koreans into their first-strike; but excited people today would not likely remember this. A horrid suspicion arises after such a 'who benefits?' analysis: maybe the Bushies are not so stupid as they are unbelievably ruthless.
Anyone sure that the Pentagon would never sacrifice Americans to its own interests should look up "OPERATION NORTHWOODS" on GOOGLE. Also they should remember that Pres.Johnson and Robt. MacNamara admitted later that they continued the Viet war long after they realized it could not be won, pointlessly sacrificing thousands of U.S. troops as well as millions of the Viet people.

 
SOME PROTECTOR! South Korea may face any day a first-strike from North Korea, aimed mainly at the tens of thousands of Americans in So.Korea. (Talk about stupid: letting No.Korea arm to the teeth, and keeping 37,000 GIs a few miles away to serve as hostages!) In this strike, Seoul would be destroyed at once, as well, possibly, as many other cities in So.Korea and in Japan./
Other client-states of America (e.g., Australia) may think again about wanting shelter under the 'umbrella' of such nutty 'protectors' as the Bush-team. (Indeed, under our new imperial policy, other nations may find their main danger is from our loonies!) Germany has obviously rethought its position already. And South Korea would like to dissociate itself from us, though now it's too late./
UPDATE: U.S. is pushing for economic sanctions on N.K. (which they have said they'll see as start of war) and also US announces that we are going to hold 'joint military exercises' with South Korea. One could understand (approve or not) if US just launched a sneak first-strike at N.K.--but to tease and provoke them into striking first at us is just loony.

 
GEORGE BRINGS PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR SHELLS: Today over 4 million people around the world, in 600 cities in over a dozen countries, marched to protest the policies of our government. Polls show that hundreds of millions object to these policies. The polls show the numbers opposed to our government; the marches show the intensity of this opposition./
Today's marches were unparalleled in history--not even Stalin or Hitler provoked such simultaneous and spontaneous marches throughout the world. (And for many protesters, Mr.Bush's persona symbolized the Amerika they hate.) [Later: American embassies are wiring Washington about the astonishing degree of loathing that George Bush has generated throughout the world.]
If the Bush-team had any sense, they'd worry that this intense, this widespread anti-Americanism might result in a drop in demand for our exports. Already we have an alarmingly large and growing deficit of sagging exports compared to our voracious imports.

 
SENATOR BYRD'S SPEECH: Sen.Robert Byrd, one of the senior Senators (and no liberal!) just made a speech deploring the Senate's complicit silence on the coming war. He points out that 50% of the Iraq population is under 15. [He doesn't note that we plan to hurl 3000 missiles/bombs at Iraq in 2 days, from a safe distance of course.] Then he questions a President who can say that the attack will be 'in the highest moral traditions of our country.'
If civilization survives, this speech will go down in history for its prophetic eloquence. To read the whole speech: on internet go to TRUTHOUT.ORG/ on that page, click on 'Senator Byrd's speech'. (By the way, TRUTHOUT.ORG is a wonderful 'clipping service' for reading stories that the main papers are sitting on.)

 
Letter to USATODAY / A FANATIC IS A HERO YOU DISAGREE WITH.
R.Lamb(14Feb) pulls the 'easy for him to say..' line on Osama bin Laden. We should loathe this man as a mass-murderer; we should despise him for his distorted version of Islam. But we dare not snicker at him.
Here is a millionaire willing heroically to live in a cave. He amazingly survived all our B-52 barrages in Afghanistan. He has inspired such loyalty that nobody turned him in for our $20 million offered reward.
Bin Laden masterminded one of the most brilliant strategies in military history, significantly wounding the world's top Superpower with only 19 men armed with box-cutters. In encouraging 'martyr-murderers', he apparently indicated he would soon fill that role himself.
Of course he is our enemy, but he is a formidable enemy--much more worrying than Saddam! Muslim children will be named 'Osama' for decades, or centuries, to come.

 
Letter to COLORADOAN / MANLY WAR? /
T.O. Moore's column on education (14 Feb) has finally revealed his right-wing agenda. He described approvingly the woman who learned to accept, as an inevitable result of testosterone, her son's love of
war--(also of 'conservative' politics!) These leanings in her son were probably caused by a flood of militarist propaganda, not by hormones./
The truth is that war today is not especially manly. We intend to start the Iraq war with 3000 missiles in 2 days (hurled from a safe distance) , so our soldiers won't need to fight..if that doesn't work,
Bush threatens to follow up with nukes./
Pilots breakfasted in Kansas, then climbed into their safe B-52s to bomb hell out of Afghanistan, then back to play with their children in the evening. A nuclear submarine, capable of wiping out a whole nation,
could very well be staffed by middle-aged women (perhaps made ornery by menopause)./
90% of modern casualties are civilians, often children. In our past few wars, our soldiers faced less danger from traditional combat than young males endure on our highways. There is danger from germs and gases: one in four veterans of Desert Storm are now certified as disabled for life. But getting gassed or germed is not distinctly male--indeed many women and children in our homeland may soon share
these experiences.
Young men seeking chivalry and gallantry will not find it in today's military, no matter what fictitious war-movies may suggest. War today may sometimes be an ugly necessity; but it is always ugly, rarely brave or splendid./
Actually, there is today a biological connection between being male and being--not a warrior--but a couch-potato. A Utah study showed that testosterone levels surge in spectators who see 'their' team win. And so 70% of U.S. men, who now favor the war, are getting ready to watch it on their TV..few of them enlisted! (Of course if the war turns out disastrous, their testosterone level may drop.)
Watching your country win a war, you feel manly; real war may tear off your testicles.

 
TRUTH? Secy.of State Powell says, about Iraq, that we have reached 'the Moment of Truth'.
Neither Saddam nor the Bush team would recognize Truth if it hit them in the face.
Some say that Truth is the first casualty of war. Not so; good sense perishes first;
then there is no demand for truth.

 
Letter to USATODAY THE IMPERIAL PROCLAMATION THAT BACKFIRED:
A half-page story (12F) tells of CIA Director Tenet warning of a possible rush of nations to develop nukes. These nukes around the world will be mostly aimed at us./
If this rush has any one cause, it is the policy statement of the Bush regime last September that says,basically: "We have all other nations now at our mercy, militarily; and we will launch first strikes, possibly nuclear, at any nation that even tries to catch up with our weapons. Luckily, we are a merciful nation, but we intend to keep you all at our mercy."
The obvious response of any self-respecting nation is not to submit to the new Empire, but to
develop 2d-strike weapons, nuclear or (more likely) biological. Thus they can counter imperial
intimidation with the counter-threat of damaging American severely, even if they can't destroy U.S.A.
Thanks to the crazy Bush announcement (criticized even by hawks like Brent Scowcroft) the
worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is galvanized. We will now face al
quaeda-like threats from non-Muslim countries who used to be our allies.

 
TONS OF GOLD FOR PENTAGON EACH DAY / DUCT-TAPE FOR HOME DEFENSE
The government recommends, in the face of imminent terrorist attacks, that we stock up on duct-tape !We can never completely protect ourselves, but we could, at considerable expense, mitigate the dangers. For instance, for $20 billion we could outfit airliners (as Israel has outfitted its military transports) to lessen the urgent danger from shoulder-launched missiles. We've known about this danger for years, and since 9/11 we've known that such dangers are not just theoretical. But we never made that move./
The one-time-expense for airliners would equal what we give to the Pentagon every 20 days; yet we couldn't afford this measure--nor to set up an emergency program for recruiting and training nurses; (we already face an urgent shortage of nurses, even before the first bioterror attack.)--and so on. (USATODAY, on 18 Feb, ran an editorial about this scandalous underfunding, headline HOMELAND INSECURITY.)
We give $1 billion each day to the Pentagon. How much is that? It equals over 70 TONS of gold each DAY; (at $400 per ounce; figure it out) The White House has allocated one dollar for home-defense for every $10 or more going to the Pentagon--far more after this war starts. And Pres. Bush says he'll veto any home-security increases, /
Through this invasion, the Bush team sharply increases the risk of 'revenge' terror-attacks, yet they will not fund what protections would be possible. They will go down in history as no friends of the American people.

 
INDEX TO PREVIOUS BLOGS (PART III): [to read previous indexes--2/2 & 1/18, or to read
previous pieces: under ARCHIVES at left, click on the WEEK containing desired date]
2/2 SUPPOSE I'M WRONG...
NYT ON 'SHOCK & AWE'
2/3 SAVING US LIVES
SADDAM RECKLESS?
BRITISH ALLIES?
WHAT TO DO?
2/4 SHOCK & CHUCKLES
BLAIR DENIES IRAQ/A-Q LINK
2/6 SADDAM DETERRABLE?
AUSTRALIAN SENATE CENSURES HAWK PREMIER
WHO'LL STRIKE 1ST ? (US OR N.KOREA?)
2/7 BUSH SAYS SADDAM RECKLESS
DR.STRANGELOVE LIVES (POWELL'S UN SPEECH)
GULF WAR & DEFLATION
2/8 SITUATION CRITICAL,NOT SERIOUS
BRITISH INTELLIGENCE DENIES IRAQ, A-Q TIES
SELF-CENSORHIP BY US MEDIA
WHY AM I SO COOL? (LUDDISM)

 
WORLD CONSENSUS / Letter to USATODAY
"[Saddam] will probably try..splitting France and Russia off from the international consensus", says a U.S. diplomat (10 Feb). That's a smooth but blatant lie; it's clear that France and Russia REPRESENT the broad international consensus in opposing this invasion. Reuters Newsalert(30 Jan) says that opposition to the war runs above 65% in Britain,France, Germany,Spain, Italy, Denmark,Czech Republic,Hungary, Portugal. Mexicans (80% opposed) and Australians and Canadians also oppose the war, as do Turks and the rest of the 1 billion Muslims worldwide, also Russian and Chinese leaders. The European Parliament went on record officially in opposition. Either the whole world is crazy, or U.S. is.

 
WHY SO COOL? I've asked myself how I can stay so cool as we and the world approach unparalleled disaster. Perhaps it's because, as a luddite (opposing technological progress) I've been expecting megatech-caused disaster for at least 30 years. I'm (almost) ready for it.
I would not expect my case against megatech to impress any firm technophil. But for people who now intuit the connection between megatechnology and human disaster, my theory might help explain why this is inevitable. See my book DEMOCRACY, RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS--WHAT ARE THEY? WHAT GOOD ARE THEY? (ch.1 &2) /Peter Lang Press, 2002. Out-of-print, of course, but it can perhaps be obtained through interlibrary loan from some university libraries.

 
SITUATION IS CRITICAL, BUT NOT SERIOUS:
Bush said solemnly, "The Game is Over!"/ Chirac replied succinctly: "It's not a game, and it's not over."
Years ago a TV bit featured a gigantic, mutated chicken:
it was dangerous as hell,
but you still snickered. /
Similarly, the Bush team is perhaps fatally dangerous not just to us, but to civilization: but they are still ridiculous. We should never forget that. We should never let fear turn into respect.

 
GULF WAR & DEFLATION: The cartoon DOONESBURY has been trying to introduce Deflation as a topic to be discussed here. Recently a White-House aide in the cartoon said not to worry about deflation, because leaping oil-prices after the invasion will trigger inflation. (Gasolene prices are leaping up already, before the war even starts!)
That's a misguided idea; while the oil-industry will prosper (without an increase in US jobs), the rest of us will have less money left after spending more for gasolene and house-heating; (also interest rates may
rise because of our skyrocketing war-deficit); so we'll be able to buy less goods of other kinds, so the deflation in other areas (with depressed profits and employment) will INCREASE.
Modern war doesn't help the economy the way war used to. War used to lower unemployment because of extra jobs in making weapons. But weapon-making is now automated.
DEFLATION, though rarely discussed in America, is an important issue, for these reasons:
1) By far the most important economic issue should be the rate of Unemployment. This is an important index of the welfare of ordinary people, as opposed to millionaires. Today it has been said there are 2 million unemployed Americans; many are giving up, not even looking any more for jobs.
2) Deflation is the sagging of prices generally, from the overproduction of goods (due to automation) and the corresponding shortage of effective demand (what people can and will pay for goods.) Automation already cuts into the employment rate, even when demand is rising; when demand starts falling, and yet automation is progressing (so fewer worker-hours are needed to produce a given amount of goods), there is a sharp increase in unemployment.
3) Eventually the continued rapid progress in automation-technology will inevitably cause worldwide overproduction and deflation. The question is whether this process has already begun.
Japan has already experienced years of deflation, not cured by zero interest rates (why borrow money for extra production, when you can't sell what you now produce?) By some measures, deflation has been happening in America for a year. [In 2002, US 'productivity' (the ability to do without workers) 'improved' at the fastest rate in 50 years. (NYTIMES8Feb)]
Venture Capital (offered to start new, speculative enterprises) is at the lowest level in decades.
Why invest in more productive capacity, when we already have more production than the market can absorb?
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE SEE THAT MODERN TYPES OF WAR DO NOT MITIGATE DEFLATION OR UNEMPLOYMENT./
[Two previous pieces on glut, on 11/4/02 and 1/1/03.]

 
A VITAL PART OF THE 'CASE FOR WAR' IS THE CLAIM THAT
THE WAR IS NECESSARY,
BECAUSE SADDAM CAN'T BE DETERRED.
I am concerned only about a possible attack on U.S. I'd consider it a horrible abuse for Bush to
risk our troops to maintain any 'world system', etc.
--There is some real chance (call it 'X' degree of probability) that Saddam would continue to be deterred by our nukes, as he has been in the past. For 10 years we have been bombing his country; other rulers might have flipped out by now from humiliated rage, and struck out, even suicidally. He has reacted with considerable prudence./Stalin & Mao, MUCH more powerful than Saddam--even in their senility--were sensible enough to be deterred by our nukes. Why wouldn't S. be that sensible?
--There is no reason at all to think he has any nuclear program going at all. An n-program is not
easy to hide from inspectors, as is a biowar program.
--Either he now has supergerms or he doesn't.
--Suppose he does. Then one thing is sure; after we attack him, especially with 3000 missiles in
2 days, then he CANNOT be deterred, in his death-throes,from attacking us in any way he can:
(most probably, by donating his supergerms to the martyr-terrorists who are eager to die
inflicting them on our homeland.)
Then we are really foolish to reduce a real ('X-sized') chance that he could be deterred without an invasion, to the zero chance of deterring him in his death-throes.
--If he doesn't have them yet, but is on the way to getting them, then it might seem sensible to stop
him from getting them, at almost any cost. (However, the price we'd pay in increasing Muslim
rage and helping Osama-types recruit more hordes of terrorists to attack our homeland might be
too high a price to pay, even in this case; who's to say they can't get the germs elsewhere, e.g.,
from North Korea which SAYS they have them?)
What all this comes down to: Unless (a) we KNOW he doesn't now have supergerms,
we'd be complete fools to reduce the chances of deterring him from X to zero.
And we have no way of KNOWING that he has no supergerms yet.

 
SHOCK & CHUCKLE, NOT SHOCK & AWE:
Acc.to NYTIMES (2F) we plan to hurl 3000 missiles/bombs in 1st 2 days of war, hoping to horrify Iraq into surrender (as A-bombs shocked Japan). /
The imperialists in D.C. very likely hope that this superhuman, subhuman demonstration will also terrify any other countries who might be tempted to defy our imperial decrees. /
But the grim chuckles will come from Osama-types who foresee the ease with which they will then be able to recruit new hordes of martyr-terrrorists eager to die killing Americans--some perhaps residing already among us--from among the 1 billion Muslims worldwide, further enraged by this slaughter of fellow-Muslims. /
The only defense, but an effective one, against this 'Darth Vader' Pentagon is for each other nation to develop 2d-strike weapons (which can at least damage the U.S., if not destroy it) to deter us from launching such an armada at them if they choose to defy us--(just as France developed a small n-force to deter the Soviet from attacking France.) North Korea has likely done this already. /
Runaway proliferation will make it easy for nations to develop small nukes, easy to deliver (e.g., in ship-containers)--even easier, to develop 'dirty bombs' which don't require n-reaction (explosive wrapped in radioactive material, easily come by) and easy to deliver to relatively undefended U.S. homeland. Easiest of all is to develop vaccine-proof supergerms, and to notify Pentagon ahead of time that a nation can retaliate with devastating effect. /

 
WHAT TO DO? Nothing will stop the war.
But for your own self-respect:
on internet, type WAYNE ALLARD go down to #7. go through the routine of identifying yourself.
On 'subject', go to IRAQ. in message box, type Not in MY name!

 
SAVING AMERICAN LIVES:
At a town-meeting: every time Senator Allard was told of a horrendous US tactic or weapon (e.g., cluster-bombs) he automatically recited this sacred mantra: "..if it's necessary to save American lives..." /
How does this issue arise? Well, in the Kosovo campaign, our bomber pilots deliberately flew very high to protect themselves from antiaircraft fire. Unfortunately, that meant they couldn't see what was on the ground, so they inadvertently sometimes bombed the Kosovo civilians we were supposed to be rescuing.
I propose a Senate resolution to say that one American life is worth 50 lives of foreigners. Thus, if we have to kill 40 foreigners to save the life of one American invader, that's OK. After all, we are the Master Race. /
But there should be some limit; if we have to kill 500 foreigners for every American life we save, that's right out. In such cases, we should perhaps save US lives by avoiding that war altogether.

 
SUPPOSE I'M WRONG...suppose the invasion of Iraq goes like clockwork; the people of Baghdad turn out to welcome the liberators [or are at least so paralyzed by 'Shock and Awe', plus threats of nuking, that they offer no resistance]. Suppose the Saddamite elite surrenders or accepts exile or commits suicide or is murdered by enraged Iraqis. I'll be delighted to be wrong. /
As a mere philosopher, I'm no prophet of what will actually happen, militarily or geopolitically. I was too pessimistic about the Kosovo campaign; I thought the air-assault alone would not defeat Serbia, since they could hide their tanks and guns in mountain caves. (It turned out they did that; at the end of the war, they returned with practically all of their military assets intact. On the other hand, our air-interdiction meant they didn't dare use these tanks & guns much against the Kosovans.) /
Fans trumpeted that air-power alone produced the victory. But we won't know, until Milosovec tells us, WHY he decided to back out of Kosovo (ultimately dooming his regime). It might have been that he was counting on Russia's support, and they double-crossed him or failed him. It might have been (as Bob Lawrence guesses) that we bombed hell out of Serbian industries, which he & his allies owned. (But with these industries already destroyed, what did he have to lose by continuing the Kosovo campaign?) Perhaps he feared the wild Albanian irregulars who were filtering in to help the Kosovans (in that case, airpower did not prevail alone; there were groundtroops arrayed against him). /
I was right in my prediction that driving out the Serbians would not produce peace in Kosovo--now we need hundreds of international troops (perhaps for years) to separate the two hating groups. /
Anyway we did prevail in the short run in Kosovo, with almost no U.S. casualties--our favorite scenario. Likewise, of course, in Afghanistan--again, at least in the short run. /

RATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF RISK: This is a philosophical question. /
Probable predictions: About the small likelihood of Saddam attacking us (with germs donated to terrorists) if we DON'T invade, I would accept the October CIA assessment, for lack of any better empirical data. About any threat he poses to his neighbors (except Israel, which can defend itself)--I'd go by the fact that the leaders of neighboring countries, meeting in Cairo, opposed the invasion. (Also the inspectors have found no sign of any nuclear program.) I have no doubt that he has plenty of gas and germs concealed and available; with Darth Vader at his doorstep, he'd be a fool not to. But assuming that he's sane (though evil) he won't use these weapons for a first-strike, reserving them as a 2d-strike deterrent against invasion. /
About the dangers to our invading troops, I would just go by common-sense (and by an auditor's report that the vaunted 'space-suits' are often defective; also by a report that Saddam might have access to 'dusty' VX gas, and 'machined' anthrax germs, whose tiny particles could penetrate even intact space-suits). Also Saddam might gas & germ our troops in the neighboring countries before they invade, before they don their space-suits. /
About the likelihood of our troops being welcomed as liberators, I'd reflect that for the past 10 years we've been bombing Iraq steadily, and Saddam has been telling the people that these raids have been killing civilians. Also, millions of Iraqis (including children) have died from the effect of our import-restrictions--we say that's Saddam's fault, he says it's ours. I don't see the welcome as likely. /
I really don't know what effect the savage 'shock & awe' assault will have, in collapsing any resistance--but IF the Saddamites don't surrender first, knowing about this prospect, and knowing of the 'nuke' threats from Bush--if we actually have to invade, then I'd say the leadership is irrationally stubborn, willing death before surrender--and that they calculate that their people will join them in this fanatic resistance. /
There's no doubt that if we're willing to endure high casualties, our Darth Vader equipment will ultimately crush resistance in the short run. (Whether we'll capture Saddam is more doubtful.) /
Then we will face the real possibility that in the regime's death-throes they will donate nasty germs to the terrorists literally dieing to inflict them on our relatively unprotected homeland. /
The Iraq we face after victory may be one ravaged by civil war, with devastated oil-fields, (with Kuwaiti and Saudi oil-fields perhaps damaged)..oil may skyrocket in price, bringing on a severe new recession in the U.S. /
The expense of the war and subsequent occupation of Iraq could mount to nearly $2 millions of millions over the next 10 years, wreaking havoc on our economy.[from paper by Amer.Acad.of Sciences]/ While we are distracted by the Iraq war, North Korea could become a full nuclear power, with long-range missiles, with a 2d-strike capacity that makes her immune to our threats, ready to sell nukes to other countries. /

Now a rational decision would weigh the risks of not invading (real, but quite small) against the risks from an invasion (formidable). Invasion seems to me now (and to practically all of the leaders of the world--and to stock markets around the world) to be a really foolish risk. /

EVEN IF, BY SHEER LUCK, WE PREVAIL QUICKLY AT A SMALL COST, THAT WON'T CHANGE THE FOLLY OF TAKING SUCH UNJUSTIFIED RISKS.

 
INDEX TO PREVIOUS BLOGS (part II):
( to read blog on 1/20, go to left under ARCHIVE, and
click on the week containing 1/20, i.e., 1/19->1/25.)
1/20: IS IRAQ REALLY HELPLESS?
1/21:CRAZY? NO, CLEVER
1/23: WHOLE WORLD OPPOSES INVASION
1/24: SILLY EXPERT
MORE ON SANE AMERICANS
TRUST? C'MON!
SHOCK WITHOUT AWE
1/25: PREEMPTIONS BY GOOSE? OR BY GANDER?
COME HOME TO SAFETY?

1/27: UPDATE ON SELF-CENSORSHIP
BLIX'S REPORT
BLAIR'S MAD SINCERITY
GOOFY IMPERIAL POLICY/ NUTTY ANNOUNCEMENT!
1/29: IMMANENT THREAT?
CHANCY WORLD OF PREEMPTION
OIL AS PRIZE?

 
INEQUALITY: Everyone acknowledges that economic inequality is fast increasing here. Some say that's because the new economy needs highly trained people, so naturally the gap grows between the trained and the untrained. But it turns out that the Big Winners are not the top half of Americans (those more highly trained), but the top 1%--who may not be very highly trained. These people inherited large fortunes and then saw them grow like weeds. Being wealthy to begin with, they could bribe lawmakers and officials to increase subsidies, and then to cut taxes, for the wealthy./
--The right-wing bias of the 'business news' is shameless. The NYTIMES sometimes offers objective analysis. But A NYTIMES article recently said, following conventional wisdom, that a cut in dividend taxes would help large numbers of Americans because many of us now own stocks. But ONLY A FEW own MANY shares, so the Republican tax-cut would mostly benefit, as expected, the wealthy./
(It's not clear that the millions would benefit at all who 'own' shares by participating in a pension plan that owns shares.)