Ike -
Would Saddam become more magnanimous in the eyes of Islam population he doesn't use any biochem weapons? I mean, after his demise, would he look much grander because he has uphold his end of the truth with UN inspection declaration and confirm the "smokescreen" justification used for the war? This is hypothetical because recent reports noted that turning biochemicals into potent weapons is quite a bit more sophisticated and there are doubts they have laboratories capable for such manufacturing. The reports are quite credible because biochem recipes are available through books and the internet, and Saddam has given laboratory training to terrorist groups. The sophisticated equipments for transforming the chemicals into weapons are not easily available.
One thought - As much as US wants and encourages Iraqi people to revolt, American anti-war protests are getting arrested and snuffed out as best as it can be done. American press is also primarily presented from one sided viewpoint. If it were not for the news available via the internet, American support for the Iraq war would be 90% instead of 70%.
Another thought - Let's say humans are just that and people (civilians) are humans no matter where they live and from whatever cultural backgrounds and political ideologies they have, here is a quote from one of the greatest users of mass psychology. It works in US as well as in Iraq, or any other country with "common enemy" whether the enemy is the tribe (clan) next door neighbor or others with different religious faith. The "leaders" of established nations or groups comprise of very small percentage of the population but the power influence is massive. Anyone else with ties or associations with the ones in power or one in tune with the existing climate can reap huge financial benefits and spread the news on how great the leaders are. (No different with investors and how much they are in tune with economic climates). The majority just become good citizens by following and obeying the laws or set customs. The oppositions can always voice contrary opinions if they don't have potential of destabilizing the government, or snuffed out if they do.
---------------------------
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
-- Hermann Goehring, Hitler's Reich-Marshall, testifying at the Nuremburg trials after World War II
------------------------
Ritter Speaks on War in Iraq
by Jennifer Chen
Last night, Scott Ritter, former United Nations (U.N.) chief weapons inspector, spoke about the current war with
Iraq to a packed audience in the Statler Auditorium.
Ritter began his lecture by saying that "this is a tough time for us all. A nation at war should never be taken lightly, regardless of the justifications or lack thereof."
Although he is opposed to the current war with Iraq, Ritter wanted to make clear that he is not an antiwar activist. He believes that "war is sometimes required if that which you believe is threatened." He felt that if
the United States as a nation, along with its constitutional ideology, was legitimately under attack, then a war would be appropriate and justified.
Ritter placed specific emphasis on the need for a proper evaluation of how the United States progressed to its state of current international crisis and how to best proceed from there on. He stressed that no matter what the U.S. does, it will not win this war.
Having served twelve years as a U.N. marine intelligence officer and having fought in the Gulf War, Ritter is well-versed in U.S. military strategies. He used his past experience to assess the credibility of the objectives put forth by the Bush Administration regarding the liberation of the Iraqi people.
"I know intimately the Iraqi terrain and the government. The policies that were advocated by the Bush Administration
define victory as the liberation of Iraq, the creation of a democratic government in Iraq and the transformation of the structure of Middle Eastern government. ... But this
strategy will not work," Ritter said.
Ritter described the Bush Administration's current war plan as the "effects-based strategy" that operates under
four main assumptions: the support of the Iraqi people for the U.S. liberation of their country, the lack of defense
from the Iraqi military, the fragility and the lack of resistance capabilities of the Iraqi government and the support of the international community.
However, according to Ritter, "none of it worked. ... The CIA was suckered."
As U.S. troops are now finding out, the Iraqi people do not want to be liberated, he said. Ritter stressed that, in
addition to the backfiring of previous assumptions, the strategy of a "shock and awe" approach that attempted to
create the illusion of a great U.S. military force has not proved effective.
"The Iraqi soldiers are not surrendering and are fighting back. Our supply lines have suddenly been cut off. And
now, we're not so invincible as we seemed before. The effects-based strategy no longer works, and now the war
won't be short and fast like it was promised to be when the President signed in approval of it," he said.
Ritter believes that implications of this potentially drawn-out war include a shift toward a more negative attitude in how other countries will view the U.S. and its people in the years after the war. He says that already, the Iraqi people will never rally behind U.S. intentions because "they view us as invaders."
Although he foreshadowed tactical victories, Ritter ardently stressed that diplomatic, economic, political and military triumphs will not result due to the U.S.'s violation of international law. He also said that the United States has carried out its objectives void of legitimacy and support from the U.N. Security Council.
It has not only violated the U.N. Charter but also the U.S. Constitution, he continued.
"We are therefore asking our men and women to fight for something not supported by the very Constitution that
they have sworn to uphold," he said.
Ritter did not fail to address the fact that the U.S. has managed to gain support from other countries. However, he
called the U.S.-labeled "Coalition of Willing" as a "Coalition of Billing" in reference to the bribery involved. Ritter believed that both Great Britain and Spain pooled their support because they desired to maintain a special relationship with the U.S. that will elevate their status and power relative to their European counterparts.
Additionally, the coalition is comprised of many Eastern European nations, which according to Ritter joined
because the U.S. threatened to veto their application to NATO.
Moreover, Ritter drew from his past experience and weapons inspection knowledge to firmly declare that he
believes Iraq does not possess viable nuclear weapons.
"In my experience in Iraq, we have never found any evidence. Given the poor quality of the weapons and their
viability span of about five years, even if they were made in 1998, they would not be functional now," Ritter said.
Furthermore, he described how in order for biological warfare agents such as anthrax to be effective, they must be in powdered form. Iraq, however, only produced a liquid form of the chemical and did not perfect a method to
transform and stabilize it in another state, he said. In addition, the V-X nerve agents and the artillery shells
required for the proper assemblage of militarily viable chemical weapons need production facilities, which were not
found by U.N. inspectors. He thus concluded that "Iraq does not have chemical weapons" due to the nation's
inability to perfect stabilization techniques for their potential biological warfare agents.
The lecture ended with a standing ovation from the audience, and a question-and-answer session followed.
These questions included one that sought advice from Ritter on how to strategically make individual antiwar
sentiments acknowledged by the government. Ritter replied with an emphasis on the need for a strategic objective
that does not protest against but for a certain cause, namely peace. He also encouraged active citizenship and
exercising the individual right to vote.
"It is too late for stopping the war, but we can change the government that got us into this war," Ritter said. "It is a dereliction of duty for us to not oppose this with all of our strength if this war is not justified."
Many felt that with American troops currently fighting overseas, Ritter's speech and discussion of war-related
issues was very relevant.
"I thought he was amazing. He came at such an appropriate time. He really addressed the ignorance of the American people and the bias in the media portrayal of Iraq well," said Elizabeth Paddock '03.
"He was really able to articulate the things that we felt but couldn't express. His military background and
experience make his arguments much more convincing," added Rachel McMichael '03.
Copyright © 2003 by The Cornell Daily Sun, Inc. |
