Barry Talks! : Common Sense for Uncommon Times

Wednesday, October 6, 2004

Why I'm Not Voting for Bush - I

This is the first in a series outlining my reasons for not voting for the current administration. First things first: I am not a Democrat; I have voted Republican more times than not. I voted for Bush the elder in 1988 and 1992, and Bush the younger in 2000.
However, I believe the current administration is leaving the United States in a far worse position than when it found it. Tonight I will discuss what is the central issue in this election, Iraq; in subsequent posts I will describe how the President has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution; how he has slowed the pace of the economy and innovation; and how he has betrayed the founding principles of the Republican Party.
I believe this to be the most important election of my lifetime; that is why I am speaking out.
Concerning Iraq, I am dividing the discussion into two parts: first, why did we invade Iraq? and second, the damage that the Iraqi war has done to the United States.
1. Why Did We Invade Iraq?
In all the debates concerning Iraq, not once has anyone ever posed what in my view is the fundamental question: why did we invade? Why, finally, did the administration feel it necessary to place soldiers in harm's way?
Leading up to the war we heard time and again about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which we now know not to have existed. How many times did we hear Bush's refrain that "we will disarm Iraq"?
And now we know better. But were the combined intelligence agencies -- the CIA, FBI, NSA, military intelligence -- so wrong? If so, how can they ever be believed again? And can we trust leaders who were evidently so duped and misled by either mistaken or evil or subversive intelligence analysts?
Alternatively, was it the case that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith simply wanted, as it were, Saddam's head (a sad simile these days). A while back the story went around that perhaps while some lowly analyst peered over a satellite photo of a fuel dump, a general or undersecretary behind him barked, "Looks like germ warfare storage, doesn't it, son?" "Yes, Sir!" the intimidated analyst answered.
If the administration simply wanted to go to war, which increasingly appears to be the case, then the question is, why? As I've said, the WMD rationale seems ever more problematic. Did Rumseld et.al. simply want to "finish" the 1991 war? Perhaps, and that feels credible. Certainly not credible is the ex post facto reason offered that we invaded to "liberate the Iraqi people" -- a noble goal to be sure, but never mentioned prior to the invasion. Also never mentioned was the possible -- and quite reasonable -- motive of retaliating for Saddam's 1993 attempt to assassinate ex-President George Bush; a valid legal pretext by any interpretation of international law, but one never suggested by the administration.
Why did the United States invade Iraq? This question has not been answered.
2. How the Iraqi War Damaged the US
The consequences of the Iraqi war have been nearly as devastating to the US as to Iraq and will almost certainly be more long-lasting.
First, and most importantly, we have now lost over 1,000 brave American lives in Iraq. These are husbands, wives, mothers and fathers that will never return. Thousands more have been severely wounded.
There has yet to be an accounting of the Iraqi casualties, military and civilian, during the course of the war and subsequent insurgency; but every day we see dismembered children admitted to shabby hospitals. Through an intense propaganda campaign across the Islamic world, the US is being blamed for all of these.
Second, the financial cost of the war staggers the imagination. Whether the number is $100 billion (the Bush estimate) or $200 billion (Kerry's), it is an extraordinary amount of money, one that could have paid for (for example) universal health care for all American citizens.
Prior to the invasion, the US and coalition forces maintained a policy of containment -- the no-fly zones and economic sanctions. This effective approach to isolating Saddam cost exactly zero American lives, and about $3-4 billion a year. For the cost of the present war we could have contained Iraq for decades, with no cost to US lives, economy, or prestige.
Third, the cost to American prestige is equally distressing. Following September 11, newspapers around the world proclaimed "on this day we are all Americans." It was an emotional and historic show of support.
Today, our allies understand our reasons for the Iraqi war no better than we. We cannot count on them to help us rebuild Iraq; indeed we have actively excluded them, preferring to bear the exorbitant costs ourselves. The President cannot travel abroad with massive anti-war demonstrations in the capitals of the countries he visits.
Our credibility has been deeply wounded; I will only mention in passing Colin Powell's humiliating speech before the United Nations, so intended to mimic Adlai Stevenson's Cuban Missile Crisis speech a generation ago -- Powell's facts, upon which we rested a war, were plain wrong. The United States of America should never be wrong about such momentous facts.
The damage done by subsequent scandals -- Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, Chalabi, disclosures about what we really didn't know, and so on make it impossible now to create an international coalition led by the US. Should a crisis arise in some other part of the world, we do not have the prestige to lead a global response. And trouble spots abound.
Fourth, Iraq has sent a message to other rogue nations around the world. That message is, very simply, "Build your nuclear weapons and other WMD's fast, before the US invades; once you have them, you're safe." That is what is happening in North Korea and Iran today -- and the world is a far more dangerous place.
In fact, the situation in North Korea is reaching a critical stage. Within a few years that country will have both nuclear weapons and ICBM's capable of delivering them to the American heartland. We have done little to address this other than to half-heartedly negotiate. The Bush administration, in a word, took its eye off the ball.
Fifth, in Afghanistan -- where, let us recall, Osama bin Laden trained the Al Qaeda terrorists -- we are evidently seeing a genuine, emergent democracy. We have liberated millions of women from Taliban oppression; yet large portions of the country are still under the control of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Karzai's hold is tenuous. Why have we diverted our attention to Iraq, instead of solidifying our gains in Afghanistan?
The President claims that we have killed or captured two thirds of Al Qaeda's leadership. That is a disingenuous claim, for as the insurgency in Iraq shows, terrorist ranks are swelling.
Hatred of America in the Islamic world appears to be at an all-time high. What could we be doing about that? Nothing, it seems, has been done to counter the tide of anti-American propaganda. From screeds in Al-Jazeera to the pulpits of madrassas throughout the Middle East, we are losing the war of ideas.
Finally, where is Osama bin Laden? As Vice President Cheney reminded us last night in his debate with Senator Edwards, more Americans were killed on September 11 than at Pearl Harbor a generation ago. Yet three years after the fact, bin Laden roams free. Would not American interests have been better served by sending all those professional, well-trained divisions now in Iraq into Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan to get this bastard and bring him to justice?

Comment (0) #