They wouldn't listen to me either

Hey Folks,

In February 2003, before the start of the war, I wrote to a Columbus Dispatch columnist urging him to reconsider his recently published support for going to war with Iraq (see below).

He didn't.

You can judge for yourself how accurate my predictions were, but I think I had it scoped out pretty well. A few of the things I mention have not happened - yet - but we are still at war, apparently for a long time yet.

The Krugman posting directly below this one presents the warnings of prominent Americans who were no more successful than I in warding off this unnecessary disaster. We were all ignored.

But here's a thought. I'm just a retired 8th Grade English teacher and a uke player. How can it be that I was more prescient than professional journalists, pundits, and politicians?

My guess is that I thought about it. Some of the go-alongers (including my "fellow Americans") were too stupid to think about it. Some were afraid to think about it. Some were so greedy they lied to themselves about it in hopes of realizing a big payoff.

If I saw it, the truth was there and not too difficult to find.

Ain't we just god's pride and joy !!!

- Uke Man



Dear Mr. Hallett,

As someone who finds your columns a pleasant addition to the “Dispatch” fare, I was disappointed when you wrote in support of a war against Iraq.

Certainly, if your underlying points are valid, your conclusion is valid. However, I respectfully ask that you reconsider several of the supporting assumptions.

You quote Mike DeWine as saying that if left “unrestrained” Saddam will become more dangerous. If we accept that as true, why is war necessarily the only means of restraining him? Doesn’t it sound funny to say that the world’s one super power is incapable of “restraining” the dictator of a tiny, impoverished country short of massive, “preemptive” war that will definitely kill thousands of innocent people?

We have been patrolling and bombing half the country (“no-fly zones”) for years; we have inspectors scurrying across the rest of the landscape; other creative actions certainly could be invented ­ short of all-out war ­ and Saddam would be forced to allow them, considering his present circumstances.

Even if we shouldn’t be dissuaded, as you suggest, from attacking simply because it will kill thousands of innocent people, shouldn’t we be dissuaded from such carnage UNTIL we have exhausted other means?

It is beyond doubt that we will kill thousands of innocents by our attack; it is much less certain that if we increase efforts to restrain Saddam he “will [nevertheless] cause the deaths of many more innocent people than will be lost in an allied invasion.”

Why not give creative assertiveness a try? The UN estimates that 500,000 Iraqis will be killed or wounded in the FIRST week of a US attack. Saddam hasn’t been gassing Kurds or initiating expansionist adventures for a while. Why not let those 500,000 folks live in peace a while longer while we try to use our heads to find a solution that will keep both “W” and Saddam from killing thousands of innocents? Can’t we always kill them later?

Your hope that Bush is agonizing over the certain death of thousands of innocent Iraqis speaks well of your character, but do you really think there is any serious hope that Bush actually cares in more than a perfunctory way? You quite accurately describe the president’s domestic agenda; he doesn’t seem to be agonizing over whether he is damaging the poor and middle class at the expense of the wealthy. He doesn’t seem to be agonizing over the incredible new and costly burden this war will inflict on the poor and middle class (whom he already demands pay a larger share of the tax burden) ­ even in the face of the already existing near-bankruptcy of the states. He doesn’t seem to be agonizing over maintaining the Social Security safety net or expanding medical care to the uninsured or the retired. To paraphrase what we often hear about Saddam, Bush is harming his OWN people; and he’s doing it proudly.

As for giving “the Middle East a chance to taste democracy,” do you feel secure in that estimate? You cite the president’s “insidious” attack on our own Bill of Rights; why should we believe he wants democracy for foreigners when he works to restrict the democracy of his own people (see Robyn Blumner’s Feb.17 column, among others)?

More telling is that every estimate of the cost of “nation building” in post-war Iraq predicts a lengthy and incredibly expensive expenditure of someone’s funds. Without allies, with a crumbling domestic economy, and with the eventual war/deficit-elicited inflation, what will become of, primarily, the poor and, secondarily, the middle class who will have to carry the freight?

Do you actually think Bush will bite the bullet to squeeze the necessary money out of regular folks (or, heaven forbid, the wealthy) to actually bring democracy to Iraq, or will he slough off democracy for a “quick fix” that gives the US hegemony at a cut-rate price without a new, democratic Iraq? Latest news indicates that AMERICANS will be running post-war Iraq for a long time, setting up a government and constitution the US (not Iraq) deems appropriate. What are we doing in Afghanistan to rebuild the country and establish democracy?

Beyond the cost of “building” democracy, what is it about a country created artificially by outsiders to encompass a certain arbitrary area and three or more completely different antagonistic groups, two of which have been zealously ruled for years by the minority group; ­ what is it about that to make hawks so optimistic about good things happening easily, quickly, and cheaply; and what makes them believe that the vast majority of those in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world will thank us for it? Sounds like a stretch to me.

You seem to dismiss Bush’s motives as irrelevant (i.e. no matter what they are, Saddam must go). Please reconsider. If Bush’s motives are what I believe them to be, his actions could severely harm both the US and the world, and far from saving lives, could lead to the deaths of many more, if not millions.

I believe that this push for war with Iraq comes out of an ideology that existed prior to 9-11. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole super power, the only “big boy” on the block. Bush Sr., in his one term, talked about “a New World Order,” but was short-sheeted by Clinton’s victory.

During Clinton’s eight years it became clear that hawkish conservatives believed that Clinton was not vigorously enough using our newly unique position to spread our influence and control over the rest of the world’s countries, none of which could independently resist us. People, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bill Cristal, and other hawks presently in or supportive of the present administration, complained that Clinton was not being aggressive enough in imposing American control around the globe. They called for, among other things, the invasion of Iraq. This suggestion clearly preceded and had NO connection to 9-11 or terrorism.

More recently, Condoleezza Rice stated, “ The international system has been in flux since the collapse of Soviet power. Now it is possible ­ indeed probable ­ that that transition is coming to an end. If that is right, then this is a period not just of grave danger but of enormous opportunity.”

Opportunity for what? A new world order with the US>calling all the shots, and with terrorism (9-11) providing the excuse and the unquestionable justification.

We have the publicly announced Bush doctrine that we will let NO country get even close to our military might, and that we take unto ourselves the right to use “preemptive” war against anyone who starts to get close and even those who MIGHT EVENTUALLY cause us problems.

We reserve this right regardless of what anyone else thinks. As Rumsfeld said, “The mission determines the coalition,” and we keep hearing that they will go it alone if need be.

We have placed ourselves above international law, including such long-standing agreements as the Geneva conventions. We are ignoring and even bullying our historic allies. The “Dispatch” editorial “Pierre contraire” (Feb.16) on the page previous to your column echoes my point. If you re-read it, I think you will agree that it essentially argues that the US is the only super power and that France’s views and interests are no longer relevant; that France should fall into line behind American interests rather than its own (which would make France irrelevant if it weren’t already irrelevant); and that France ­ if by some weird chance it really isn’t already irrelevant - will soon be MADE irrelevant for not surrendering their sovereignty to us. Sounds a little like double talk to me.

I realize that you don’t write these editorials, but I’m not surprised that SOMEONE at the “Dispatch” thinks just like Bush about slapping down anyone resisting the establishment of broader and stronger US hegemony around the world.

Nevertheless, if I am correct about Bush’s motives, then these motives DO weigh heavily upon our consideration of a possible war. These motives are dishonorable, antagonistic, aggressive, selfish, counterproductive (for the vast majority of Americans), disruptive , dangerous, immoral, destructive, and blatantly counter to all that we who grew up patriotically understand America to represent.

We selectively use international laws and institutions when it serves our agenda and totally dismiss them when THAT serves us. For example, we claim the right to attack Iraq because Saddam has gone against UN rules, and at the same time brag that if the UN doesn’t OK our war, WE’ll disobey UN rules and have a war anyway. Everyone and everything must kowtow to the mighty superpower.

Beyond the hypocrisy, stands the danger of disaster.

If one asks, “What is the most we will gain from this?” even the most optimistic answer pales in comparison to what we could lose. We WILL lose troops and capital in the war. We will vastly increase federal deficits, which will, inevitably, result in cuts to the safety net for our neediest citizens and in reduced help for hard-pressed cities and states.
We will disrupt the flow of oil, which will either negatively affect commerce by higher prices or reduce our strategic reserves, or both. We will aid in the recruitment of terrorists dedicated to raining death upon Americans. We will further restrict our own people’s access to the Bill of Rights. We will increase the unjust harassment, investigation, and arrest of innocent citizens and immigrants. We will become a nation overcome by fear and intimidation. We will likely spawn a new McCarthyism aimed at“terrorists” instead of Communists.

In more concrete terms, this untimely war could result in the overthrow by hard-line Muslim fundamentalists of one or more of our “client” states in the Middle East, and to a general hatred for the US on the part of Muslim citizens in all Arab states. It could lead to new resolve on the part of demagogic Arab leaders to use the destruction of our ally Israel as a rallying call for their own power grab. Most frighteningly, it could lead to a fundamentalist overthrow of the shaky Pakistani government, which ALREADY possesses nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.

As a result, the nuclear capability we feared Saddam would EVENTUALLY obtain would fall IMMEDIATELY into the hands of a government that hates us.

Then there’s always North Korea sitting there threatening to ignite the holocaust, believing, as whocan blame them, that Bush is willing to go to any extreme to bring everyone, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, even the American people to heel.

The possibility of a self-initiated Armageddon, more than anything else argues for lengthy further attempts at finding a solution short of preemptive war. Glib assurances from a war-minded clique that all will go smoothly, quickly, and well are not enough for me. As I said, why not wait? We can always kill Iraqi men, women, and children later if we need to. If we go to war now and, counter to assurances, killer vultures come home to roost, it will be too late for Iraqis and too late for us.

Yours - Tom Harker