Smoking Guns And Big Guns: The US Drive To War
by Robert Jensen
Dissident Voice
February 5, 2003
The world's
attention Wednesday was trained on what Secretary of State Colin Powell said at
the United Nations, but far more crucial was what he didn't say.
Most important
was the one word at the core of plans for war but which never crossed Powell's
lips: Oil. That word cannot be spoken by U.S. policymakers, though people
everywhere know that if not for oil, the United States would not be pursuing a
war.
Because the
United States won't talk openly about plans for the future of Iraq's oil, most
of the world is skeptical of U.S. arguments about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, terrorist ties and human-rights violations. People are concerned
about the issues but don't trust U.S. motives. Powell asked a reasonable
question: "Why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?"
What he fails to appreciate is that others are asking the same question about
the United States.
Given the
sophisticated U.S. intelligence technology and the fervor with which U.S.
policymakers want to indict Iraq, it was striking how weak was the case Powell
offered; the charts, maps and phone intercepts were more impressive than the
underlying evidence or conclusions. Even if his claims were all true, nothing
he said makes the case for war. Instead, Powell presented a good argument for
continuing inspections -- with serious cooperation on the part of U.S.
officials with orders to share all relevant intelligence produced by that sophisticated
system.
What was the
real aim of Powell's public-relations show? One likely target was the American
public; the administration realizes it must counter the growing antiwar
movement. Another was leaders of countries such as France and Turkey, where
populations are overwhelmingly against war and politicians need a cover if they
are to capitulate to U.S. demands without appearing to be lapdogs.
Powell
unwittingly reinforced this reality with a map of the range of Iraqi missiles.
With the exception of Israel (which wants war for its own power interests), the
people within those concentric circles of the potential reach of missiles
reject war. If Iraq's neighbors -- the people who should be most afraid --
don't feel threatened, why does the United States feel compelled to go to war?
Powell claimed
that Iraq has engaged in "a policy of evasion and deception," and
certainly a regime like Saddam Hussein's is capable of such tactics. But the
rest of the world also sees "disturbing patterns of behavior" in U.S.
actions.
A case in point:
The United States has undermined instead of supported international efforts at
disarmament. One example was its torpedoing of Jose Bustani, director-general
of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, in April 2002 when
it appeared Bustani's efforts could create obstacles to the U.S. war plans by
initiating chemical weapons inspections in Iraq. And the United States remains
the world's largest arms dealer, hardly a recommendation for its self-proclaimed
position of world peacekeeper.
Weapons of mass
destruction -- in Iraq, throughout the Middle East and the world -- are a
threat to peace and security. But the issue is pretext for the United States in
a cynical ploy to cover strategic goals concerning oil.
No one suggests
the United States seeks to permanently take direct possession of Iraqi oil.
Instead, policymakers are interested in control over the flow of oil and oil
profits. A client state in Iraq would give the United States a more permanent
and extensive military presence in the region and could push aside Saudi Arabia
as the key player in OPEC. Iraq's oil reserves, estimated to be the second
largest in the world, are particularly attractive because of quality and low
extraction costs. U.S. control over Iraq through a compliant regime -- beholden
for its very existence to the United States -- dramatically increases U.S.
control over oil, and therefore over the world economy.
U.S. officials
have openly expressed their contempt for international law and declared their
intention to go to war, with or without U.N. approval. That's why all the talk
of whether Powell would produce a "smoking gun" was irrelevant. There
was no need for a smoking gun because the nation with the biggest guns in the
world had made it clear that it needs no evidence -- smoking, smoldering, or
even completely cold -- to take the world to war.
Robert
Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the
University of Texas at Austin, is the author of Writing Dissent: Taking
Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream and a member of the Nowar Collective. Email: rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu. Other articles are available at his website: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/home.htm.