LaborTalk (July 23, 2004)
President Bush Insists America Is Safer Because of His Pre-Emptive War on Iraq
By Harry Kelber

President Bush's latest, hindsight justification for his pre-emptive war in
Iraq is that the elimination of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime and his
capture has made "the world a safer and better place and Americans more
secure."

A recent New York Times/CBS poll shows that 47% of the respondents
not only disagree with Bush, but say that the terror threat has increased as a
result of the war in Iraq.

Of course, most Iraqis, and the world, welcomed the removal of the Iraqi
bloody tyrant from power, but did they feel more secure under the
American-led occupation? There has been no abatement of violence and
death under the interim Iraqi government, even with 160,000 American and
foreign troops stationed in the country. How safe can Iraqis feel when
hundreds of families continue to lose parents and children as "collateral
damage"?

Indeed, American soldiers have difficulty in protecting even themselves
against attacks by insurgents, with 900 dead and more than 5,000
wounded. How must folks back in the United States feel, knowing that
their loved ones in Iraq may be the next ones to be killed in the two-a-day
casualties that our troops are suffering?

If we are safer in the United States from terrorists, how come that we are
constantly warned of impending threats and have to watch the color alerts
from Homeland Security? Do the delegates who are attending the
Democratic and Republican conventions feel safer and more secure,
knowing that Saddam has been captured?

If we feel so safe, why are we spending billions of dollars--and still not
enough--to guard us against terrorist attacks? Why do we keep worrying
about our airports, subways, waterways, chemical plants, electric and
sewage systems and other inviting targets for terrorists?

We still have not received a convincing rationale from the Bush
administration for getting into an unprovoked war in Iraq. There were no
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had no connection with 9/11 or ties to al
Qaeda. Saddam, after the 1990 gulf war, never threatened his neighbors and
certainly not the United States.

The aging despot had nowhere to go, hemmed in by "no fly" zones to the
north and south, His army and police forces had been eroding since 1990
for lack of money, resources and equipment. He was a toothless tiger, no
match for the United States. The Pentagon knew it and singled out Iraq to
display America's awesome military power.

It's time we recognized that the people of Iraq don't want Americans
occupying their land, either openly as under Paul Bremer III's
Comprehensive Provisional Authority or through the behind-the-scenes
manipulation of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte and his 1,000 -
member staff.

Iraqis did not respect the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, nor
do they have faith in its successor, the new interim government, on whom
the Americans have bestowed "full sovereignty." .

They have little respect for Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who, polls show,
has only about 5% support from the population and is considered a puppet
of the U.S. government, with strong ties to the Central Intelligence Agency
that financed and groomed him for his job.

The war with all its horrors will go on and the insurgents will continue their
attacks as long as American soldiers remain the de facto occupying force
within Iraq's borders. The White House should abandon its plan to maintain
a quasi-protectorate over Iraq. It should send our troops home. That would
make a lot of people feel safer and more secure.

Our weekly "LaborTalk" and "Labor and the War" columns can be viewed
at our Web site <www.laboreducator.org>. Union members who wish
information about the AFL-CIO rank-and-file reform movement should visit
<www.rankandfileaflcio.org>.