|
March
2, 2003
How should we combat the threat of Bin
Laden and terrorism? Simply, by our appeal to morality. The values
of the West: democracy, human rights, freedom and equality; to win
the minds and hearts of the world, we must call upon those values
that make our society great. This is how America should conduct
itself on the world stage.
The right-wing
hawks running the Bush Administration have little interest or concern
for such lofty idealism. What matters is that they get what they
want, without dissent or criticism, without any resistance from
the world body. We're going to war in Iraq, and you can either come
along for the ride, or just shut up. Just don't ask us what any
of this has to do with Osama.
Of course,
this inevitable war against Iraq is being waged to save lives. The
civilians will be greeting our armies with flowers in the streets.
And none of them will be hurt in the fighting. And if you believe
that, I have some real estate in lower Manhattan I'd like to sell
you.
Meet
Harlan Ullman. Most Americans have never heard of this man, but
he is, in fact, one of the most influential thinkers in the Bush
Administration. A Pentagon planner and Senior Associate at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies; formerly the Navy's "Lead
of extended planning;" former professor at the National War
College, whose students include Colin Powell. Ullman is one of the
top minds among Bush's foreign policy, as well as the coming Gulf
War II.
In a
January 24 interview on CBS-TV, Ullman publicly unveiled the Pentagon's
strategy for waging the war. It is called Rapid Dominance, or "Shock
and Awe." It is a strategy for deliberately targeting civilians
on a scale not seen since Hiroshima.
Do you
think I am exaggerating, maybe making this up? I wish I was.
Listen
to Ullman describe "Shock and Awe": "We want them
to quit, not to fight, so that you have this simultaneous effect,
rather like the nuclear weapons of Hiroshima, not taking days or
weeks but minutes."
You may
want to read that one again. The White House plan calls for hurling
800 cruise missiles on Baghdad during the first 48 hours of the
war, more than all the missiles fired in the Gulf War; about one
missile every four minutes on a city of five million. The rational
is that by causing massive, immediate casualties, the will of the
Iraqi army to fight will be lost, for fear of complete destruction.
Ullman
continues, "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad. You're
sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30
of you and division headquarters have been wiped out. You also have
to take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power,
water. In two, three, four, five days they are physically, emotionally,
psychologically exhausted."
A modern-day
version of Hiroshima. This is from the same Administration that
claims to "liberate" the Iraqi people from the dictator
they propped up. Just how many civilians will die in this campaign?
The UN suggests casualties as high as 500,000 if Iraq's fragile
infrastructure is destroyed; that included so-called targets as
electricity and water, which British intelligence admits is on the
list of legitimate targets.
Harlan
Ullman also explained to the Financial Times why "information-age
equivalents of the atomic bomb" need to be developed. "As
the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally convinced
the Japanese Emperor and High Command that even suicidal resistance
was futile, these tools must be directed towards a similar outcome
for terrorism and its place."
You may
think that this policy was formed out of desperation, after the
September 11 attacks. But, again you would be wrong. Like much of
this Administration's agenda, "Shock and Awe" was conceived
years before 9/11, and years before most Americans knew who Bin
Laden was. Ullman first described his policy in 1996, published
by the Pentagon's National Defense University under the title "Shock
and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance."
Let's
read from that book, shall we? Here's an interesting passage: "The
intent here is to impose a regime of shock and awe through delivery
of instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction
directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership
and public, rather than targeting directly military or strategy
objectives."
Take
a breath, and read those quotes again. Sure makes you want to jump
on board Bush's war, eh? Nothing will make the people of the Middle
East greet our soldiers with flowers and kisses than the sudden,
violent deaths of thousands of civilians. Yes, terrorism will surely
be a thing of the past.
It just
gets better and better. Secretary of "Defense" Rumsfeld
revealed more of the Administration's plans to the House Armed Services
Committee on February 5. American forces are planning to use so-called
"non lethal" biochemical weapons in Iraq, including anti-riot
gases and crowd control agents, similar to the "non lethal"
gases used by the Russian army to end a Chechen hostage crisis.
The only
problem (not counting all those dead Russian civilians) for Rumsfeld
is that such weapons are banned under the 1992 Chemical Weapons
Convention and the 1928 Geneva Protocol. Unfortunately, the White
House hasn't found an international treaty it hasn't scrapped or
ignored altogether.
Finally,
let's take a look at a new piece of military hardware that many
are hoping to put to use in the opening nights of the war. It's
called MOAB, or Massive Ordnance Air Burst. This bomb is a modern
version of the Daisy Cutters used in Vietnam; a 21,000 pound weapon
that is comparable to a small nuclear bomb. Of course, we are assured
that this will only be used against military targets, not civilians.
You can trust these people, kids.
Just
listen to ABC News, who preaches the virtues of MOAB's safety: "Because
it is not dropped by parachute, as was the old Daisy Cutter, the
aircraft can let it go from far higher altitudes, making it safer
for US pilots." See? It's perfectly safe. I can't imagine why
anyone would oppose this war.
|
