The First Casualty - Essay Example

The First Casualty The phrase ‘the first casualty of war is the truth’ likely could be applied at least in part to all of the conflicts between nations throughout the history of the world. The current Iraq war, however, will be forever labeled as ‘the war’ that was based exclusively on lies. The truth died many deaths prior to any human casualties since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. During one of the 2000 presidential election debates, George Bush voiced his opposition to the idea of ‘nation building’ then as president invaded a sovereign country that had not attacked first. The Bush administration used the fear of terrorism as a political tool to garner public and congressional support for the invasion of Afghanistan, the country where the infamous Al Qaeda architect Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding. Bush quickly thereafter justified sending the bulk of the military to Iraq because it was also a terrorist threat because of its massive stockpiles of ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ Of the 13 terrorists linked with the 9-11 attacks, nine were from Saudi Arabia (none from Iraq) who obtained passports from Iran and took orders from an Afghanistan-based organization. No weapons, no link to terrorism and no legal reason to attack. However, Bush decided to invade Iraq for causes deemed unacceptable to the vast majority of other nations so he repeatedly relied on and used false information to justify it. He lied. This discussion will examine how the truth was a casualty early and often during the lead up to the war and outlines some of the consequences brought about by these far-reaching and deadly deceptions. Immediately following and as a reactionary response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Bush stated the country’s intent to initiate a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he characterised as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them. The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. Bush has constantly maintained that these actions against sovereign countries were legal. First, he argues, because of existing language within the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq and secondly, the invasions are an act of self-defense which international law permits. However, according to Richard Perle, a top official of the U.S. Defense Policy Board and advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). Yet, this would have been “morally unacceptable” according to the Bush administration. Bush chose to follow the advice of jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations. The first foreign mission of the U.S. military in its ‘War on Terror’, along with the ‘coalition of the willing,’ was Afghanistan and the Taliban terrorist group based in that country. The U.S. claimed to have possessed ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ that the State of Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, as did Iraq. Yet, if this is true, then why didn’t it divulge this evidence to the Security Council so as to have a legal right to invade? The U.S. justified its invasion and occupation of Iraq to the nations of the world by proclaiming, if not proving, that it was a mission to remove weapons of mass destruction which threatened not only the U.S. but all other nations as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell and other administration officials, particularly with the U.S. Department of State, eagerly endeavored to state their rationale for aggressive military actions and make it as palatable to as many other countries as they could. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is quoted in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine dated May 28, 2003 as saying “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction” (Shovelan, 2003). Prior to the invasion, Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, stated without a doubt and quite publicly that they had not been able to uncover any evidence of biological, nuclear or chemical weapons in Iraq following three years of inspections. He went on to say that he doubted that these weapons had ever existed. Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, widely considered a hard-liner towards the former Iraqi regime and a vocal advocate for thorough weapons inspections, said, again prior to the invasion, that he was “absolutely convinced Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” (Sullivan, 2003). The Central Intelligence Agency’s 2002 report, which the Bush administration relied on as proof of their assertions, had falsely described in detail weapons of mass destruction within the borders of Iraq (Central Intelligence Agency, 2004). However, the Iraq Survey Group, led by chief inspector David Kay found that there were no such weapons. According to Kay, who later would resign as the Bush Administration’s head weapons inspector, “the U.S. intelligence services owed President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction” (“Kay”, 2004). Yet on May 29, 2003, President Bush again repeated his rhetorical assertions during an interview with TVP, a Polish television station. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories” (White House, 2003). A report released on March 2, 2004 by the United Nation’s weapons inspection team stated that “Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction of any significance after 1994” (Nichols, 2004). Colin Powell, who has himself abandoned the Bush team following one term in office largely because of the lies perpetrated by the administration, appeared on The Daily Show on June 8, 2005 where the retired 4-star general and former Secretary of State was asked about those supposed Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. “Now where we got the intelligence wrong, dead wrong, is that we thought he also had existing stockpiles, and now we know that those are not there” (“Transcript: Colin Powell”, 2005). It was Powell who went before the United Nations, an event shown worldwide on live television. He continued the Bush Administration’s assertions that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction thus posing an impending danger to world security. Powell would later express his deep regret regarding this very public presentation. Following the dubious invasion of Iraq, no ‘massive stockpiles’ of weapons were ever found. Bush has since admitted that “much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong” (“Transcript: Bush”, 2005). On August 2, 2004, President Bush again claimed he had received false information from his own intelligence service but by now had changed his reasoning for invading Iraq. “Knowing what I know today we still would have gone on into Iraq. He [Saddam] had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. He had terrorist ties … the decision I made is the right decision. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power” (“Kerry”, 2006). At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty and at worst, his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. Contrary to these assertions of terrorist ties, then Secretary of State Powell stated in January of 2004, “I have not seen a smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the (terrorist) connection” (“Iraq After Saddam”, 2004). The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, has condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, should be put on trial for his war crimes (Glantz, 2006). The trial at Nuremberg determined that military aggression is considered the most supreme of international crimes. Following the massive human carnage of the Second World War, the United Nations charter was written so as to prevent this type of action from ever happing again. It contains explicit provisions prohibiting any nation from using military force without consent of the Security Council. Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world has also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“US Threatens World Peace”, 2002). Critics of the invasion charge that no nation has the right, or the authority based on the UN Charter, to determine for itself whether or not Iraq was in conformity with UN rules or to take it upon itself to enforce them. The U.S. has also been widely criticized for applying a double standard in its reasoning. The logic of this action is in opposition to previous U.S. policies as it supplied chemical and other weapons systems to Iraq in the 1980’s to use against Iran. When the U.S. was looking for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, the popular joke being circulated was ‘the U.S. knows Iraq has weapons because they have the receipt.’ The Bush administration also used illegal, clandestine threats against other nations in an attempt to coerce their support for the war. A report published by the Institute for Policy Studies analyzed what it termed the ‘arm-twisting offensive’ by high-ranking U.S. officials to garner support. Bush describes the nations that supported him as the ‘coalition of the willing,’ but as the report concluded, it could be better expressed as a ‘coalition of the coerced’ (Anderson et al, 2003). In President Bush’s handling of the war on terror, three facts stand out: Bush launched a sustained military action against an enemy that had not attacked the U.S., the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not based on fighting terrorism and it has provided fresh examples of U.S. brutality for al-Qaeda recruiters. The illegal war in Iraq has caused terrorist attacks to increase as well as the loss of many thousands of Iraqi and Allied lives and as a consequence and has cost the U.S. dearly as far as international respect is concerned. Additionally, this ‘war’ has monetary costs reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars which has crippled the U.S. economy and will continue to for many years in the future. It has caused the U.S. national debt to skyrocket to more than eight trillion dollars at present, which will have to be paid instead of spending federal revenues on healthcare, welfare programs, education, defense systems, etc. The U.S. military is crippled as well, both literally and conceptually. It could not respond to a crisis of any size which potentially could result in a disastrous situation. As the war has progressed, the Bush administration has lost much confidence among the American public who now better understand what the rest of the world has known since Iraq was first invaded. Bush’s foreign policy is based on greed, was promoted by lies and has cost the U.S. worldwide respect that may never be recovered. Works Cited Anderson, Sarah; Bennis, Phyllis & Cavanagh, John. “Coalition Of The Willing Or Coalition Of The Coerced? How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in its War on Iraq.” (February 26, 2003). September 3, 2007 Burkeman, Oliver & Borger, Julian. “War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.” Manchester Guardian. (November 20, 2003). September 3, 2007 Central Intelligence Agency. “Iraq’s Chemical Warfare Program Annex G: Chemical Warfare and the Defense of Baghdad.” (2004). September 3, 2007 from “Colin Powell on Iraq, Race, and Hurricane Relief: Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal and Being Wrong.” ABC News. (September 8, 2005). September 3, 2007 Glantz, Aaron. “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” One World USA. (August 25, 2006). September 3, 2007 “Iraq After Saddam: GIs Swoop Down On Tikrit Suspects Iraq.” CBS News. (January 9, 2004). September 3, 2007 “Kay: No Evidence Iraq Stockpiled WMDs; Former chief U.S. Inspector Faults Intelligence Agencies.” CNN. (January 26, 2006). “Kerry Seeks Urgency Against Terrorists.” MSNBC. (August 2, 2004). September 3, 2007 “Transcript: Bush speech at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.” CNN. (December 14, 2005). September 3, 2007 Nichols, Bill. “U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994.” USA Today. (March 2, 2004). September 3, 2007 Shovelan, John. “Wolfowitz Reveals Iraq PR Plan.” The World Today. (May 29, 2003). September 3, 2007 Sullivan, Robert III. “Former Weapons Inspector Questions the War.” Cornell University Chronicle Online. (April 3, 2003). September 3, 2007 (The) White House. “Interview of the President by TVP, Poland.” Washington D.C. (May 29, 2003). September 3, 2007 “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” BBC News. (September 11, 2002). September 3, 2007 Read More