Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sanity Reigns in Washington? Not Just Yet
Just when you might have been feeling a bit of euphoria over President Obama's orders to close Guantanamo and ban torture, along comes Dianne Feinstein to bring us back to earth and remind us far we still are from having a truly sane foreign policy. Actually, the California Senator started off her first meeting as Senate Intelligence Committee Chair just fine with her vow that there would never again be "a National Intelligence Estimate that was as bad and wrong as the Iraq NIE was." She went on to explain that "I voted to support the war because of that and I have to live with that vote for the rest of my life." And there comes the problem -- the presumption that invading Iraq would have been right if the intelligence report had been right.
Certainly we can appreciate Feinstein's contriteness. 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry also claimed to have been misled, yet still argued that his vote for the war was right -- a stretch of logic that certainly figured significantly in the failure of his candidacy. But what if the NIE had been correct?
Its central claim was that Iraq had the "weapons of mass destruction" that were so famously never found after the invasion. Specifically, it read, "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Among the resulting charges leveled against Iraq was that the development of a nuclear weapon would have placed it in violation of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, to which it is a signatory. Seldom reported in the US, however, is the fact that many nations feel that the five signatories currently possessing nuclear weapons, the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China, themselves stand in violation of the portion of the treaty calling for "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to a cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" and the conclusion of a "treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Now we could argue treaty interpretations until the sun goes down, but one thing that just about all Americans would agree to is that no other nation has the right to enforce their interpretation of our treaty obligations by invasion. Fortunately, we don't even have to take such a possibility seriously because there's no country that would consider it. Other nations do not have that luxury, however -- so long as the US maintains the position that it is entitled its enforce its views by military force.
Is this simply an academic exercise? Unfortunately not. While Obama's willingness to actually talk with Iran is widely and understandably treated as a significant advance upon Bush's refusal to entertain the notion, when asked whether the "military option" remained on the table, Obama'a spokesman Robert Gibbs was quite clear: "The president hasn't changed his viewpoint that he should preserve all his options." Imagining our reaction if a foreign leader directed a similar statement at us might give us some measure of just how far we still have to go.
- Posted in
9 Comments so far
Show AllThe problems I see with those who view the Obama presidency in an almost faith based fashion is that the underlying structures of American imperialism and attitude are all still in place. I am in support of much of what the new President has instituted yet understand that these changes, if not accompanied by fundamental vision changes as well, will be limited to the term of office of Barack Obama.
The attitude that we as a nation can institute the policy of "nuclear apartheid", as coined by Nelson Mandela, in that we decide which nations are allowed to possess such weapons as if we had some mandate to do so. The truly intelligent way to deal with those nations which possess, or wish to possess, such weaponry is to disarm ourselves. We can give quid pro quo to nations willing to dismantle their nuclear arsenals by matching them weapon for weapon. We can offer inducements in the form of special trade deals and mutual defense pacts to those nations which opt out of the nuclear arena.
What we cannot continue to do is to make unilateral and pompous demands upon a world fearful of our military might.What we cannot do is to continue to support heinous actions by our allies and by ourselves as well. What we cannot continue to do is to act as if we ruled this planet, we certainly do not.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
Sioux Rose
RED RICK: Good post. The thing is, the weapons of mass destruction were always just a ruse... to simply rush in and make a grab for oil was too naked in its overt aggression, so a PRETEXT for war was needed. Remember Downing St? That the case WAS BEING FIXED for war. A case. At one point there was talk of painting planes to simulate Saddam's aircraft flying where they ought not go. For the illiterate and/or viewers of Fox, the cheers about "spreading democracy" or the same coin flipped to "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" were enough of a cheerleading deception to bring millions along for the ride into mass carnage.
If weapons were the issue, then Gallagher's argument would hold water. I mean it's right out there in living daylight that a double standard, the nuclear apartheid club or whatever he wants to term it, is operating. Unfortunately, that has little to do with the WHY of this war of aggression.
As this applies to Iran's so-called uranium enrichment program I believe we are in agreement. I recall that , prior to the political bending of intel, our intelligence reports noted that Iran possessed far too few high speed centrifuges necessary for said enrichment, showed no evidence of acquiring or building more such, and could achieve enough weapons grade material for one bomb in seven to ten years. Iran has always maintained that it is building nuclear energy plants soas to husband its one and only resource, oil, for sale.
But I was dealing with a more general interpretation of the nuclear club and the attitude of the great powers ( so-called) towards those nations who would join that club.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
I seem to remember at the time the invasion was being contemplated that Iraq's neighbors said that they didn't feel threatened. I also remember all the information necessary to make an informed decision was available on the web. Is former Senator Stevens the only one that thinks the Internet is a bunch of tubes? Do our people in Congress ever do their own research or is it always done by someone else and spoon fed to them? If it's the latter, then we really are up s**t creek! A few things that have been flowing around since that time and before: a letter from Osama bin Laden stating what he wants (many people thought/think that he is just a terrorist with no real agenda but the destruction of the US, not true) and Iraq wasn't involved; Scott Ritter's writings and reports regarding the state of Iraq's weapons programs; that the Taliban offered to round up and turn over ObL if we, the US, would just show them some evidence that he was connected and that we flat-out turned them down, if our wonderful people in the government even responded.
As for the non-proliferation treaty, that and other reasons, I'm just waiting for the other nations of the world to band together and come knocking on our doors wanting to kick some butt! And they'd be justified in doing so! That they haven't is because of our military, but that doesn't mean payback isn't on the way. Read Chalmers Johnson's “Blowback” trilogy. We have a lot to answer for and most of America doesn't even know it or why for that matter.
Sioux Rose:
I can't remember where I read it, but the “spreading democracy” idea is just a rehash of the old domino theory that was used to justify the Vietnam war, only in reverse. Like economics, we are being led by people who believe in half-baked theories with absolutely no evidence to back them up and unwilling to even look. I guess this is what can be expected by people who like Bush said that the jury for evolution is still out.
I don't believe for a moment that "we are being led by people who believe in half-baked theories with absolutely no evidence..." They have clear agendas concerned with power and profit.
The neocons "Statement of Principles" tells us that only they have the "moral clarity" (i.e. we know better than anybody else) to exercise the American "exceptionalism" for American world domination (" We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.") http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I read this statement as proof of the extreme arrogance of the neocon Bush/bankster crime family. There arrogance is not insanity, but in many ways it mirrors the arrogance of the pre WWII German government. "Uber Men, and God is With Us, so who can be against us."
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has tricked the American public into following one more arrogant leader of the ruling elite. We know how that one ended, don't we?
Sioux Rose
DAVID PEACE: I agree. They pay big money to think tanks, psychiatrists, marketing people to come up with excuses they think the American public will BUY. Remember Andrew ("greeting") Card relating the inside message of WAR AS PRODUCT you introduce during the (appropriate) season... INSANE!
What gabs me by the yam sack is that the American public forgives and forgets about these major policy "mistakes" during the re-election of people like Feinstein. Almost any truthful candidate is better than the pack of lying horse thieves serving in the Congress and Presidency.
Is the bandwagon fallacy so powerful, or are the American people dumber than a sack of door knobs or what? Did you know that Ms. Feinstein's hubby is a major Defense Department contractor?
Credit cards and plastic luxuries are a soporific dontcha know!
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so. Bertrand Russell
"Who do you want to bomb, Barack?" - Mike Gravel at one of the early "debates".
Yet again, the wrong man was elected.