All war talk, all the time
America's leaders fail to offer public
alternatives to war
workingforchange.com
"….. every time the public has started to ask questions
(about the state of the economy, or the level of
corruption in the White House) the administration is
full of new scares, this time of the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Americans went to public places 12 months ago
bearing their doubts and their questions. They
gathered in town squares, in living rooms, they
even called into talk radio. They wanted to grieve,
to ask why the United States had been attacked,
and to discuss the possible options for a response.
And they came together to find each other
because all there was on TV was horror and fright.
A year after the 9/11 attacks, Americans are still
besieged by news of -- as the logos put it a year
ago -- "America Under Attack." As has happened
every time the public has started to ask questions
(about the state of the economy, or the level of
corruption in the White House) the administration is
full of new scares, this time of the threat posed by
Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
Dick Cheney used his air time on NBC this Sunday
to stir more fears: he asked if Saddam could have
been responsible for last fall's anthrax attacks.
Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on CBS, got into a
conversation with Bob Schieffer about the
possibility that "mom and pop terrorists" might be
just waiting to buy weapons of mass destruction
from Iraq.
But as the Bush administration seeks approval to
launch the second war in a year, the situation
demands some serious consideration, not of
America's vulnerability, but of her strength. Is
America vulnerable? Sure, but it's also the richest,
most powerful, and only superpower on the planet.
And the United States is on the attack.
As Congress met in New York on Sept. 6 in a
special remembrance of the 9/11 dead, 100 U.S.
and British aircraft took part in an attack on Iraq
for which there was no international or domestic
mandate. Ostensibly to police the "no fly zones"
over northern and southern Iraq, last week's
assault was the largest engagement in four years.
As usual, Pentagon spokespeople told the wire
services that their planes acted in self defense, but
the Daily Telegraph, a conservative British
newspaper, suggested that the intent was to
destroy all Iraqi air defenses to allow for easier
access for special forces to land in advance of an
American-led war.
So far not one U.S. journalist and not one member
of Congress has even raised a question, for
example, about self defense: One hundred planes
against what?
As Americans gather again this week, the media
and the administration will remind us of our grief.
But what's still beyond the media pale is talk of
America's choices. Being terrified is only one of
them.
This article originally appeared in The Nation.
Journalist Laura Flanders is the host of Working Assets Radio.
workingforchange.com |
