The
Blair Witch Project
by Alexandros Pagidas
Dissident
Voice
February 13, 2003
I couldn’t resist
using this title although it would be more appropriate to name it “The
Blair/Bush Witch Project”. The title is perfect, because in reality, there
is no Witch. Witches exist only in films and the mass media.
The case for war, is pretty much the same with witch hunts: “witches” burnt on
stakes as innocent Iraqis will burn on Cruise missiles and other devastating
weapons – for no good reason.
That is why I decided to dismantle some of the main arguments, one by one.
The argument from Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD):
Argument 1:
Iraq has WMD.
Whoever has WMD should be disarmed.
-------
Therefore, Iraq should be disarmed [1].
Surely,
the above argument does not express the intentions of the US/UK
administrations. For if the US/UK reason for disarming Iraq, was merely the
presence of WMD, then the first candidate for disarmament, would be the US,
which is the biggest possessor and producer of WMD. It would also follow, that
all countries with WMD should be disarmed as well, that means Russia, Israel,
France, UK, India, North Korea, Pakistan etc. Yet it seems that when the US/UK
and their allies are concerned, they do NOT demand any such disarmament. So the
above argument does not seem to capture what the US/UK administration has in
mind. Let us try to revise it.
Argument 2:
Whoever has WMD, and has used them in the past knowing that their use would
result in the direct or indirect murder of innocent civilians, has to disarm.
Iraq used WMD in the past, knowing that it would result in the murder of
innocent civilians.
---------
Therefore, Iraq should be disarmed.
If we accept the first premise, it has the direct consequence that one of the
nations that should disarm, is the US. It was the first nation to use
nuclear weapons, knowing that their use would result in the murder of
innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It has also used WMD in
Vietnam (agent Orange) [2], it is using them in
Colombia as we speak [3].
Although I don’t know whether depleted uranium
actually qualifies as a WMD, it certainly has had the effect of Mass
Destruction, by causing an increase to phenomenal levels the cancer percentage
in Iraq, causing babies to be born with malignant tumours, others with no
mouths, scrotums, no noses – children that eventually die [4].
Which
means that if the US advocates this argument, it has as a logical consequence
that both the US and Iraq (and any other country which fits in the first
premise) should disarm (the US should have disarmed decades ago).
Except if the US administration wants to change the first premise to:
Whoever has WMD – except the US and its allies – and has used them in the past
knowing that their use would result in the direct or indirect murder of
innocent civilians, has to disarm.
Which will promptly result in universal –except for the US and its allies –
laughter.
So that argument won’t work as well. Maybe the US/UK administration mean
something different. Let’s try to revise the argument again.
Argument 3:
If a leader of a nation uses or produces WMD, as long as that nation is under
this leader, it should be disarmed.
Saddam Hussein is a leader of Iraq, and has used and produced WMD.
-----------
Therefore, Iraq under Saddam Hussein should be disarmed.
Now that looks more promising. However, exactly because US is using WMD in
Colombia as we speak and is the biggest producer of WMD, it also means
that so long as the US or any other country that is under a leadership (that of
George W. Bush included) that produces WMD, should also be disarmed.
A bad feature of this argument, is that it obviously leaves any other country
that just has WMD and its leader has not used them outside the scope of the
argument, therefore probably ignoring certain international treaties that
forbid the possession of such weapons.
The US under Arguments 1, 2 or 3, has to disarm. But I’ve never heard the US
administration mentioning any such scheme. Which means that it must support
some other argument. However, here is a result of our above considerations: The
US does not believe the following:
A nation or a nation having a leader, that has, produces or has used WMD
knowing that it will result in the direct or indirect death of innocent
civilians, does not serve as reason to disarm it.
For if it did believe the above, then the US would begin disarming and urge any
other nation that falls under the above category to do so as well.
So let us try another argument that might express the US administration.
Argument from Threat:
Even though it doesn’t matter (as our above considerations shown) if a
nation or leader has, produces or has used WMD, if a nation or leader threatens
to use them, it justifies us disarming him, by peaceful means if possible.
Iraq is threatening to use them.
-------
Therefore, Iraq should be disarmed by peaceful means if possible.
Nevertheless, premise two is false. Iraq has not threatened anyone. When it did
use them, the US not only supplied them [5] the
infrastructure to make them [6], but also was an ally during
the worst atrocities:
“After the worst attack, on
Halabja in 1988 near the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the Reagan team covered for
Saddam by implicating Iran, then prevented Congress from imposing tough
sanctions on Iraq. Joost R. Hiltermann, an official with Human Rights Watch,
shows in a recent column for the International Herald Tribune (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0117-01.htm)
that Saddam was likely emboldened to use ever more lethal concoctions to polish
off the Kurds because he knew from past gassing experience in 1983, 1984 and
1987 that he could always count on the support of Reagan, Powell and George H.
W. Bush.” [7]
Let
us also clarify what “threaten” actually means in this context. It cannot
mean defensive threatening. For if it did, then both the US and UK
should be disarmed as well. For they have threatened that they may use their
WMD if they have to defend themselves.
Which takes us to an additional US argument:
The Argument from Belief
If there is a belief that a nation or leader – even though it is not stated
by that nation or leader – is threatening another, then the other is
justified in defending itself, either by demanding disarmament or by using
military force.
The US believes that Iraq and Saddam Hussein is threatening the US.
---------------
Therefore, The US is justified in defending itself, either by demanding
disarmament or by using military force.
The way to refute the argument, lays in a premise that is presupposed, yet not
mentioned in the above argument:
Hidden Premise: A belief that a nation or leader – even though
it is not stated by that nation or leader – is threatening another, is enough
to justify either demanding disarmament or using military force.
Which no sane person will accept. A belief does not guarantee either
truth or rightness. For any belief to be taken seriously, it has at
least to be justified in some way. But to really carry any weight, it has
to also be true. I may be justified in believing that John (who is sincere)
will visit me at 10 o’clock because he said so yesterday, but if John had an
accident and didn’t visit, my justified belief would simply be false.
So let us reformulate the argument:
If there is a justified true belief that a nation or leader – even though it
is not stated by that nation or leader – is threatening another, then the
other is justified in defending itself, either by demanding disarmament or by
using military force.
The US has a justified and true belief that Iraq and Saddam Hussein is
threatening the US.
---------------
Therefore, The US is justified in defending itself, either by demanding
disarmament or by using military force.
Which means that what the US and its allies should do, is not only justify
their belief that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses a threat to them (and the world
as they claim many times) but also show it to be true.
Now to avoid
confusion, let’s be very clear and take the word threat in the
above context to basically mean military threat.
But if that is
the case, the argument just collapses. For even in the extremely unlikely
possibility that the US will present a justified true belief that Saddam
Hussein threatens the US and its allies, Saddam Hussein does not have the
military might to threaten them with. For the previous UNSCOM inspections
between 1991-1998 were almost a complete success, as David Edwards writes:
“Hans Blix has
occasionally referred to the fact that previous inspections were "quite
successful" but these mentions are never explored by the media.
In fact the
remarkable truth is that the 1991-98 inspections ended in almost complete
success. Scott Ritter, chief UN arms inspector at the time, insists that Iraq
was "fundamentally disarmed" by December 1998, with 90-95% of its
weapons of mass destruction eliminated. Of the missing 5-10%, Ritter says:
"It doesn't even constitute a
weapons programme. It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons programme which
in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited."
(War On Iraq, Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, Profile Books, 2002, p.24)
Of nuclear
weapons capability, Ritter says:
"When I left Iraq in 1998... the
infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about
that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons
design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted
down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles
and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or
plutonium. We never found anything." (ibid, p.26) ”[8]
How can this
“bits and pieces of a weapons programme” threaten the biggest military power in
world history and its allies? It can’t. The claim is just absurd.
Even if Saddam
did manage to hide some Chemical and Biological WMD, they would have now turned
into useless sludge as David Edwards writes:
“It is entirely uncontroversial that Iraq
is only known to have produced liquid bulk anthrax, which has a shelf-life of
just three years. The last known batch of liquid anthrax was produced in 1991
at a state-owned factory. That factory was then blown up in 1996. Any remaining
anthrax is therefore, by now, sludge. Blair, again, must surely be aware of
this.”
Professor
Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS) discounts the possibility that any Iraqi anthrax produced in bulk prior
to 1991 could still be effectively weaponised:
"Anthrax spores are extremely hardy
and can achieve 65% to 80% lethality against untreated patients for years.
Fortunately, Iraq does not seem to have produced dry, storable agents and only
seems to have deployed wet Anthrax agents, which have a relatively limited
life." ('Iraq's Past and Future Biological Weapons Capabilities', 1998,
p.13 http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/iraq_bios.pdf)
Readers will
recall that Colin Powell held up a vial of dry powder anthrax in his
presentation to the United Nations, referring to the anthrax attacks on the
United States. This is the anthrax that Iraq "does not seem to have
produced", according to the Center for Strategic and International
Studies. Powell is regularly described in the media as a 'dove'.
Any botulinum
toxin would now also be so much sludge. A CIA briefing in 1990 reviewed the
threat from Iraq's biological weapons facilities:
"Botulinum toxin is nonpersistent,
degrading rapidly in the environment . . . . [It is] fairly stable for a year
when stored at temperatures below 27c." ('Iraq's Biological Warfare
Program: Saddam's Ace In The Hole', August[?] 1990 http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/73924_01.htm)
The strategic
dossier of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) of 9
September 2002 assesses the likelihood of Iraq retaining a stockpile of
biological weapons:
"Any botulinum toxin produced in
1989-90 would no longer be useful." (p.40)
Ritter has
explained how UN Unscom inspectors roamed the country monitoring Iraq's
biological facilities, installing sensitive sniffers and cameras and performing
no-notice inspections. But is it possible that Iraq could somehow have
reconstructed its capability since 1998? Ritter responds:
“For Iraq to have biological weapons
today, they'd have to reconstitute a biological manufacturing base. And again,
biological research and development was one of the things most heavily
inspected by weapons inspectors. We blanketed Iraq - every research and
development facility, every university, every school, every hospital, every
beer factory: anything with a potential fermentation capability was inspected -
and we never found any evidence of ongoing research and development or
retention.” (op., cit, p.38) [9]
The same goes
for VX, as the same article by Edwards points out clearly citing credible
sources (Blix, Ritter, The International Institute for Strategic Studies'
strategic dossier of September 2002, Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force,
April 2002).
To sum up: Even
in the unlikely possibility that the US provides a justified true belief that
Saddam Hussein is a military threat to the US and its allies, the claim
collapses, because Saddam Hussein does not have any serious military might to
threaten the US and its allies.
So if the word
“threat” basically means “military threat” the argument collapses. How about if
the word “threat” is meant in some other way than military threat?
For threat can
be broadened to mean a lot of things. For example let’s take the idea that
“Saddam is a threat to democracy”. In what way is that to be understood? What
does democracy mean in that sentence? It cannot mean the “idea of democracy”
for surely no one can threaten an idea, unless by some sort of intellectual
criticism, and I don’t think that Saddam is known to have produced any. It
cannot mean the democracy of other states since Saddam has not
threatened any other democracies nor does he have any significant capability to
do so (as it was shown above). It could only mean one thing, that Saddam is a
threat to the democracy of Iraq. But he is not exactly a threat, he has
actually passed that point, and is something more than that – namely a
tyrant and dictator.
Which means that
even if the concept of threat is broadened, it can only justify the
intervention of another country or countries (namely the US and its allies) if
that country or countries believe in the following argument:
Argument from
Democratic Benevolence:
Wherever there
is a dictator, tyrant we should use any means, peaceful if possible, to get rid
of him, because he is a threat to the democracy of his own country, and hence
to his own people. [10]
In Iraq there is
a dictator, tyrant – Saddam Hussein – that is a threat to the democracy of his
own country, and hence to his own people.
--------------------
Therefore, we
should use any means, peaceful if possible, to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
But if the US ever
believed that argument, it should not have supported either Saddam
Hussein or the Shah of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, the Contras in Nicaragua etc.
in the first place.
Let us even be
charitable, and say that US had a change of heart. It now believes in the
argument from Democratic Benevolence. That of course, means that it should stop
supporting Musharraf in Pakistan and any other dictator or tyrant in the world.
For if you wish to get rid of Saddam because he is a dictator, you would be
in contradiction if you supported Musharraf, who is also a dictator.
But even if we
were to grant that we should get rid of dictators and tyrants that would not
immediately entail that we would authorize the use of force. For the clause
was “peaceful if possible”. This clause is important because military force
usually is accompanied by “collateral” damage – namely the death of innocent
civilians – something that sane people would like to avoid if possible. There
are peaceful ways to get rid of dictators, although they may not always be
possible. However, the use of force should be the very last resort. [11]
An idea that
seems plausible prima facie, is to have the UN guarantee democratic elections
in Iraq, inform the citizens of Iraq of the advantages and disadvantages of
different forms of government, and let them elect their own candidates. Obviously,
a lot more is to be said as to how this scheme is to be implemented, and what
consequences it would have internationally. For if it happens in Iraq, why
shouldn’t it happen in other states as well? And who can guarantee that the UN
won’t be corrupted by the influence of powerful states? But this another issue
for another essay.
As for the
“Argument from Terror” namely the US claiming that Iraq has links with Al Qaida
and a war on Iraq is justified by its links with terrorist networks, I think
this argument has been thoroughly demolished by several writers like Chomsky (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Chomsky_ConfrontingEmpire.htm) and others you will
find on http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
and http://www.dissidentvoice.org
The Overall Conclusion
If the US/UK
administration wishes to use any of the above mentioned arguments, if
they do not wish to fall into contradiction they should follow the
logical consequences of these arguments.
If they want to
use arguments from WMD, they should disarm. If they want to use the argument
from Threat, the second premise of this argument is currently false. If
“threat” is interpreted defensively, then US and UK should disarm as well. The
argument from Belief contains a hidden premise that no sane person would accept
which is that: A belief
that a nation or leader – even though it is not stated by that nation or
leader – is threatening another, is enough to justify
either demanding disarmament or using military force.
More is needed –
justification and truth – for such and argument to work, but even if the
argument was reformulated so as to include those, it would require that the
US/UK provide a justified true belief that Iraq and Saddam Hussein – even
though it is not stated by that nation or that leader – is threatening the
US or any other nation, in order for the US and its allies to be justified in
demanding disarmament or using military force. Unless such a justified true
belief is provided, the US/UK is unjustified and cannot use this
argument. Even if they [US/UK administrations] did
provide such a justified true belief, if the word “threat” is interpreted to
mean “military threat” then the argument collapses because Iraq poses no
military threat.
If we expand the
scope of the word “threat” so that “Saddam Hussein is a threat to democracy”
for instance, then the US/UK administrations would require the argument from
Democratic Benevolence in order for them to justify their intentions. Although
history teaches us that the US rarely upheld such an argument, if there is
surprising change of heart, that would mean that the US should stop supporting
dictators and tyrants throughout the world like Pakistan’s Musharraf. But even
if the change of heart enables the US to advocate the argument from Democratic
Benevolence, it still does not enable it to launch a war as
long as peaceful alternatives are possible. For such a war, not only
will promote a new generation of terrorists according the CIA
[12], but it will also result in numerous – “collateral”– deaths of
innocent Iraqi civilians.
**
For further reasons why the US is pushing for war, read the articles by Chomsky
in http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm (you’ll find them as you scroll down on your right), Robert
Fisk (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Fisk_IraqOil2.htm), Milan Rai (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Rai_IraqOil.htm) and other
articles on Iraq in http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm and http://www.dissidentvoice.org **
Alexandros Pagidas is currently doing his MA in Philosophy at the University of
Reading, UK, and can be reached at: alexandros@mailbox.gr
NOTES
[1] Obviously wherever I speak of
“disarming” I refer to disarming WMD, not disarming conventional weapons
generally.
[2] Jeffrey
St.Clair, Drug War According to Mengele, Dissident Voice, December 31, 2002, http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/StClair_Andes.htm
[3] Ibid.
[4] For more on the devastating effects of
depleted uranium, the Gulf War and the devastating sanctions that cost the
lives of literally thousands of Iraqi children, read: Samia Nakhoul, Parents of
Dying Iraqi Children vent Fury on Bush, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2532, Seiji Yamada,
The Ongoing Assault, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2394, Jeff Lindemyer, Myth
and Fact, http://zmag.org/ZMag/Articles/nov01lindemyer.htm, Claudia Lefko,
What about Children in Iraq, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2123
and
more if you search http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
[5] “When you
next hear Blair or Straw or Bush talk about "bringing democracy to the
people of Iraq", remember that it was the CIA that installed the Ba'ath
Party in Baghdad from which emerged Saddam Hussein. "That was my favourite
coup," said the CIA man responsible. When you next hear Blair and Bush
talking about a "smoking gun" in Iraq, ask why the US government last
December confiscated the 12,000 pages of Iraq's weapons declaration, saying
they contained "sensitive information" which needed "a little
editing". Sensitive indeed. The original Iraqi documents listed 150
American, British and other foreign companies that supplied Iraq with its
nuclear, chemical and missile technology, many of them in illegal transactions.
In 2000 Peter Hain, then a Foreign Office Minister, blocked a parliamentary
request to publish the full list of lawbreaking British companies. He has never
explained why.”
John Pilger,
Blood on their Hands, January 29 2003, Dissident Voice:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Pilger_Blair-Iraq.htm
[6] Noam
Chomsky, Confronting Empire, February 4 2003, Dissident Voice:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Chomsky_ConfrontingEmpire.htm
[7] Dennis Hans, Lying us into War,
Scoop Media, February 12, 2003, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3024
[8] Blair’s
Betrayal part 1, Media Lens, February 10 2003,
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/030210_Blairs_Betrayal1.html
[9]
Ibid.
[10] There is a missing premise which states: “Whoever is a threat to the
democracy of his own country is also a threat to his own people” which we
assumed to be true.
[11] Let us not forget that this is within the context of the argument from
Democratic Benevolence. People might not accept such an argument for various
reasons.
[12] See
Chomsky, Confronting Empire.