December 24, 2002
Inevitable war?

I am seeing more and more frequent references to the inevitability of a war with Iraq. I wonder if this isn't something of a self-fulling prophesy. If we see it as inevitable then there is not much reason to protest against the war. After all, it's inevitable.

I, for one, don't believe it is inevitable. George Bush will in no way be able to say before, during, or after any such war that it was inevitable and there was nothing he could do. The push for war has been deliberate and calculated. If war does expand beyond the current no-fly zone incursions (bad enough in themselves) it will be because Bush has been aggresively pushing for this to happen. Every thing I see reported from the administration is about how dangerous Hussein is, how he's not cooperating, and discounting any reports from the weapons inspectors or other news sources which report anything contrary to the war agenda.

When the inspectors made a surprise visit to one of the presidential palaces the reports I heard were that they were given free access and not restricted in any way. Wouldn't it have been a good diplomatic gesture to indicate that this was encouraging and that we were happy to see the Iraqi government cooperating? Has anyone seen any such comments from anyone in the administration? All I've seen in the way of comments from the administration are how incomplete their information is, every response from the Iraqis is inadequate, and we must all continue to keep up the pressure in order to effect regime change.

What do those of you in this meeting make of the reports that Blix's complaints that he is not being given intelligence data which would indicate where he should search for the suspected weapons of mass destruction? It seems to me like a game of "Hot/Cold" where the person who is it walks around trying to find something and the other players who know what and where the looked for object is indicate that they are getting warmer (closer) or colder (farther away). It is perfectly understandable that if the Iraqis are hiding anything they wouldn't indicate the right places to look. But if the Bush administration does, in fact, have hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction as they claim, why don't they give some indication as to where to look? How can the game be played if no one will indicate if the searchers are getting warmer or colder? Random searching is almost certain to fail. What are we talking about here? Maybe a few dozen inspectors at most in a country that's more than twice the size of Idaho? They certainly aren't likely to trip on such weapons accidentally.

Has anyone seen any indication from the administration that any of them see any possibility of resolution of our issues with the Iraqis other than war? If so I would certainly appreciate a pointer to it.

Posted by JoKeR at December 24, 2002 09:51 AM | TrackBack
Comments