22 Reasons not to expand the War on Terrorism to Iraq
cooperativeresearch.org
This information sheet is being distributed by [name of your organization here], a local organization made up of everyday Americans who understand that true patriotism necessarily implies a willingness to be critical of the government when it fails to represent the needs of its people.
It is not in America’s interest to invade Iraq.
1) An unprovoked invasion of Iraq and the removal of its leader by force would only sow more seeds of anti-American sentiment among the populations of the Middle East and inspire more acts of terrorism against innocent Americans. This view was most recently voiced by experts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in late July and early August.
2) The American economy is steadily deteriorating: The trade deficit and the budget deficit are both increasing, the tax base is declining, personal and corporate bankruptcies are on the rise at a staggering rate, consumer confidence is plummeting, investor confidence has all but disappeared, the stock market just recently hit new lows not seen since 1998, millions of Americans are without health insurance, unemployment is rising, affordable housing is almost nonexistent, the U.S. dollar is losing value (which could eventually result in inflation and rising interest rates), state governments - with California in the lead – are under severe financial duress, and the very existence of Social Security and Medicare is at peril. An expensive war will only exacerbate these problems. Is this the time to spend billions of dollars to invade a third world country clear across the globe?
3) The proposed war against Iraq has nothing to do with the government’s purported objective of ridding the world of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Rather the real motive behind removing Saddam Hussein from power and imposing a U.S.-friendly government is, as Henry Kissinger admitted in an op-ed piece published by The Washington Post, ‘essentially geopolitical.’ By this he meant that Saddam Hussein is not a threat to American citizens, but rather a threat to the profits of American oil corporations who are covetous of the huge amounts of oil that are inconveniently located in a country ruled by a leader who not pro-American. It also means that establishing American hegemony in that oil-rich country is fundamental to the long term strategic -interests of multinational corporations (you know, the ones that have cheated investors out of billions of dollars) who want to increase their influence elsewhere in the world in order to hedge against the possibility of a total economic collapse in the U.S.
The U.S. currently has no credible evidence to substantiate its claims that Iraq is a threat to America.
4) In 1999, a committee under the UN Security Council concluded that Iraq’s primary biological weapons facility “had been destroyed and rendered harmless.”
5) In January of 2002, the International Atomic Energy agency sent inspectors into Iraq and found no evidence of nuclear weapons.
6) Hans von Sponneck, the UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq from 1998-2000, wrote in 2001, “Iraq today is no longer a military threat to anyone. Intelligence agencies know this. All the conjectures about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq lack evidence.”
7) Outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, informed incoming President George Bush in January of 2000: “Iraq no longer poses a military threat to its neighbors.”
8) The February 6 edition of the New York Times stated, “The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is convinced that Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda or related terrorist groups.” The NYT reiterated this view in a recent editorial that was published on August 3.
9) The 2002 annual state department report on state-sponsored terrorism admitted that Saddam Hussein’s regime has few links with Islamic fundamentalists.
War in Iraq would be disastrous.
10) An attack on Iraq could provoke Saddam Hussein into invading Israel thus drawing the region’s most resented state into the conflict. A joint U.S./Israeli war against Muslim Iraq would likely inspire uncontrollable popular uprisings in neighboring Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.
11) A U.S. attack on Iraq would be viewed upon by many in the Arab world as an unprovoked act by Western imperialists. Many fear that the pro-Western governments of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordon, which are already breaking at the seams, would experience massive social unrest as a result of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
12) Saddam Hussein’s military is much stronger and loyal than the former Taliban’s rag tag army of hungry conscripts. The Iraqi dictator commands an army consisting of 350,000 men, 2,700 tanks, 90 jets, 100 helicopters, and 300 mobile anti-aircraft missile launchers. Experts agree that his extremely loyal and well-trained elite republican guard would present a considerable challenge to American troops fighting on the ground. Even Colin Powell admitted, “The Taliban neither consolidated its hold nor built regular armed forces. Iraq, on the other hand, has a strong state apparatus and a sizeable professional military.”
13) A U.S. ground invasion of Iraq would require a large commitment of American soldiers because unlike in Afghanistan, where the U.S. relied heavily on the Northern Alliance as a proxy army, there are no Iraqi opposition groups powerful enough to confront Saddam’s military forces. U.S. military strategists believe a ground force of up to 250,000 American soldiers would be necessary to defeat Saddam Hussein’s army. They concede that a large number American casualties would be inevitable.
14) Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is densely populated. Civilian casualties would consequently be much worse
15) An attack on Iraq would likely provoke Saddam Hussein into using whatever destructive weapons he actually has. The Observer (London) reported, “The planners [in the Pentagon] have decided they will have 48 hours to find and kill or capture Saddam before he tries to deploy any nuclear, biological or major conventional weapons he may have.” And former Iraqi intelligence officer Wafiq al-Samarrai similarly stated: “The US should know that Saddam will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction on American military groupings. Diplomacy is the only choice for the United States.”
16) Even if the proposed military operation were to succeed in ousting Saddam Hussein from power, who would replace him? The U.S. currently has no clear plan for a post-Saddam government. The various departments within the U.S. government are at odds with one another over who would be a suitable leader. And even if the U.S. could decide on a successor to Saddam Hussein, it’s certain that the Iraqis themselves, representing several different ethnic groups, would not readily accept a leader imposed upon them by a foreign power. Experts almost unanimously agree that U.S. plans to invade Iraq lack considerable foresight and hold the potential to make an already bad situation in the Middle East even worse. As Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution said, “Removing Saddam will be opening a Pandora's box, and there might not be any easy way to close it back up.”
Almost no one supports the United States’ plan to invade Iraq.
17) The Joint Chiefs of Staff (comprised of high ranking military officers) have stated their opposition to invading Iraq. On July 22, Electronic Intelligence Weekly reported that according to a “senior retired U.S. military official” whom the intelligence newsletter interviewed on July 15, “there is total unity among the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the regional Commanders-in-Chief, in opposition to an Iraq invasion.” The source named the new Commander of the Pacific Command as one of the more vocal critics of Washington’s war plans, “noting that the Pacific Command is the key support for all U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.” On July 29 The Washington Post published a similar article in which it was reported: “Despite President Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat.” The Post quoted one officer who actually questioned the president's motives, saying, “I'm not aware of any linkage to al Qaeda or terrorism, so I have to wonder if this has something to do with his father being targeted by Saddam.”
18) Most of the international community opposes the U.S. plan to illegally invade Iraq and forcefully dispose of Saddam Hussein. Countries that have expressed serious concerns over the Bush administration’s ambitions include: Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
19) Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, told David Corn (09-30-2002), Washington editor for The Nation, “They [the hawks] have no reasonable plan, no magic button to push. They want to overthrow Saddam Hussein, but the only way to do that is put U.S. ground forces in Iraq. That would be a bloody mess and we would have no support whatsoever from other countries.”
20) Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponneck, former UN humanitarian coordinators for Iraq, have authored numerous op-ed pieces in major newspapers denouncing U.S. plans for war against Iraq. The two men had resigned from their positions in the U.N. in protest of the U.N. sanctions on Iraq which they argue are genocidal because of the more than one million innocent people that have died as a direct result of the policy.
21) Scott Ritter, former UN chief weapons inspector in Iraq, is also a prolific author of op-ed pieces denouncing the war drive against Iraq. He has repeatedly argued that (1) Saddam poses no significant threat to the U.S., its allies, or even Iraq’s neighbors; (2) that Washington currently has NO credible evidence to substantiate its claims that he is a serious threat; and (3) A war against Iraq would completely destabilize the Middle East, producing disastrous consequences for the future – increased frequency of terrorist acts against Americans, a lengthy and costly war, and increased economic instability.
22) Even the Iraqi “opposition” groups are against U.S. plans to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein. Ayatollah Mohammad Bakr al-Hakkim of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq told one reporter, “There is no need to send troops from outside to Iraq. It could be seen as an invasion and could create new problems. . . . . The best thing the US can do is force the regime not to use its heavy weapons against the people, like they did in Kosovo. Then the Iraqi people can bring change--it must be done by the Iraqis themselves.” Massoud Barzani of the Kurdish Democratic Party stated back in February, “We will not be ordered by America or any others. We will not be a bargaining chip or tool of pressure to be used against Iraq.” And Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan declared on August 7, “We are not for blindly participating in any attack or in any plan. . . . We are not in favor of having a new dictatorship replacing the old one.” |
