Michael B. Casaus
Oct 28th Teach-In Speak-Out for Peace, NMSU
On
September 11 of this year, the one year anniversary of the terrorist attacks NY
and DC, I heard an excerpt of “President” Bush (who as we all know was NOT
popularly elected and thus does NOT speak for the majority of Americans)
speaking on Ellis Island, with the Statue of Liberty in the background. One
comment he made has stuck with me to this day. I'll quote him: "Every life
is precious...We value every life, our enemies do not, not even the innocent,
not even their own." This statement is the epitome of hypocrisy. All I
heard from Bush during my last months in Mexico, every night on the BBC and
every morning on the Voice of America, is about his wish to go to war with Iraq.
Well as we all know, WAR equals DEATH. Death for not only military combatants,
but also death for innocent civilians. This fact cannot even being denied by the
Bush administration. Only they define it as “collateral damage”.
It
is obvious that when Bush says, "every life is precious", he means to
say, "every AMERICAN life is precious". When he says "we value
every life", he really means "we value every AMERICAN life". We
only need to look back over the past year and the so-called “war on
terrorism”. It began with the war in Afghanistan, against the Taliban and Al
Qaeda. Professor Marc Herold, of the University of New Hampshire, has
conservatively estimated that in the first eight and a half weeks (!) of the war
there were 3,767 innocent Afghan civilian deaths. And we can all do the math:
3767 Afghan civilians dead. A little over 3000 civilians dead in the 9-11
attacks. Yet Bush says that "we value every life".
Now
I'm not sure how much press this report received in the corporate run media in
the US, but I am assuming that no one has heard of it. The only news I heard of
about innocent Afghan deaths concerned the infamous wedding party massacre,
which left something like 19 dead. And as far as I know there has been no real
investigation into this by the US military. In fact, the BBC reported that there
was substantial evidence that there was a massive attempt by the US military to
cover up the massacre. First there is a massacre of civilians, then there is a
denial by the Pentagon, then it is forgotten by the media and the public. The
usual.
Now
we are set on “continuing” our war on Iraq. Yes “continue”. Over the
past 11 years, American and British warplanes have been bombing Iraq in the
so-called “no fly zone” (that, by the way, no UN security council resolution
called for such a zone), supposedly in response to anti-aircraft fire. So let us
be clear. Bush wants to continue this war on Iraq, but increase it’s
intensity.
Over
the past couple of months, I have heard Bush and his administration change
stances towards Iraq. First, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney were stating that
the time for a reintroduction of weapons inspectors into Iraq was over. Second,
there was no talk of the UN and the Security Council. Third, the administration
was stating that there was no need to provide evidence of supposed Iraqi nuclear
capability (including Secretary of War, Donald Rumsfeld, stating that there is
no need for evidence because “the absence of evidence does not mean the
evidence of absence”...what a joke!). Now,
under pressure from the American public and the Congress (including prominent
Republicans) there has been a change. Now Bush is ‘attempting’ to provide
the evidence that the public wants. Now we want the reintroduction of arms
inspectors. Now we want to go through the United Nations. All of the sudden, we
respect the UN. Even though we still refuse to pay them.
We
repeatedly state that Saddam has repeatedly flouted UN Security Council
resolutions. Yes, this is true. They have flouted 16 such resolutions. But why
is there no mention of Israel's flouting of 29 UN Resolutions, including
Resolutions 242 and 338 demanding an end to the occupation of Palestinian land?
Why are we not planning a war against Israel? (And they actually DO have nuclear
weapons!)
We
repeatedly state that Saddam has “gassed his own people”. Yes, this is true.
But where were we in 1980's when this was occurring? Why did we do nothing then?
Why, after the gassing, did Saddam remain a strong ally of Bush Sr. and the US?
Now all of the sudden, we care. Now all of the sudden, we are afraid of the
chemical and biological building blocks that we gave Iraq, through the CDC, in
the 1980s.
Of
course, some stances have not changed: (1) a “preemptive strike” and (2)
“regime change”. Issue 1: If our government fulfills this promise, it will
set the most dangerous precedent the world has ever seen, not only in the
international arena but also nationally. If we begin to wage war on countries
that “might” commit crimes, who will be next? Iran? North Korea? Colombia?
And where and when will this end??
Issue
2: It is a bit ironic that the country that claims to promote “democracy”
around the world is making choices for people that live across the globe. Yet we
speak of regime change. Of removing a ruler of a country. There is no doubt that
Saddam is a terrible dictator. But who are we to decide that he must go. Why do
we want "this" dictator gone? We must remember that Saddam used to be
our best friend. When we in fact supported him during his war with Iran. But now
he is somehow a threat to our national security. Is the country with the most
nuclear weapons in the world (totaling in the thousands!) actually afraid of a
country that “may” have “one”? Amazing. But Bush is afraid that Saddam
might use it against us. Do we honestly believe that Saddam wants to live
through the aftermath of such a use? I mean, the US is the only country to have
ever ‘used’ a bomb of that caliber! Have we forgotten WWII and Japan? Has
there not been recent evidence that WE used chemical and biological weapons
during the Korean conflict? The world should be, and is, afraid of US. Such as
shame, being that we could be doing so much good in the world, alleviating
poverty, etc. But instead we concentrate on WAR when we should be concentrating
on PEACE.
The
claim that Saddam has links to Al-Qaeda has no basis in fact. I have not seen
nor heard of any hard evidence to corroborate this claim. In fact, what happened
to our war against Osama bin Laden and his network? I seem to remember that it
was he who masterminded the 9-11 attacks. And why wasn’t Saddam not mentioned
in the weeks following 9-11? Why are we now worried about Saddam? Because we
cannot find and kill Osama? Nor destroy his network? This leads me to question
our ability to find and kill Saddam! We could not accomplish this feat 11 years
ago. What makes us think that we can fulfill this dream today?
In
addition, this claim that Saddam has a nuclear weapon also has no basis in fact.
I have not seen nor heard of any hard evidence that he possesses such a weapon.
Some time ago, I heard Bush and Tony Blair cite a report that supposedly proved
that Saddam had nuclear capabilities. The next day, the author of the report
stated that the report claimed no such thing. I guess that Bush has to lie to
try to persuade the American public into going to war.
Unfortunately,
lying is not uncommon when it comes to Iraq. We should remember that before the
Gulf War, two huge lies convinced Congress and Americans that we should go to
war. In the first lie, Bush Sr. claimed that according to satellite imagery,
there was a massive Iraqi military buildup on the Saudi Arabian border. It was
later proved, after we had gone to war, that it was a flat out lie. There was no
build up and there never was one. In the second lie, the daughter of the Kuwaiti
ambassador to the US briefed Congress and stated that Kuwaiti children were
being taken out of their incubators by Iraqi soldiers. Six months later, after
we had gone to war, it was discovered that this too was a lie. I won’t even
mention the lies the Pentagon spread, through corporate US media, about the
accuracy of our so-called “smart” bombs. It is important to remember that
the US government is not beyond lying to the American public. If we question the
Bush administration, and distrust their public relations campaign, we may avoid
war.
But
let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that Bush DID have strong evidence
that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Do you think that he would wait around
discussing the ‘possibility’ of war? I think not. He already wants to go to
war because Saddam ‘might’ have them. If we knew that he ‘did’ have
them, we would have attacked already. Let us be sensible here. Even Scott
Ritter, a past chief UN arms inspector, that professes to be a card-carrying
Republican who voted for Bush, has stated several times that Iraq has no such
nuclear capabilities. This ex Marine and veteran of the Gulf War spent seven
years in Iraq, meticulously going over every aspect of the Iraqi arms
capabilities. Ritter also states that Iraq has been under constant satellite
surveillance since the inspectors left Iraq. And that if they were developing
nuclear weapons, that gamma rays would be released would be detected by that
surveillance.
And
why was Ritter, an obvious expert on Iraqi arms capabilities, not called before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democrat Joe Biden? Because
you can’t have a credible person claim that we should NOT go to war. Domestic
politics at its best. With an election coming up, Republicans are leading the
war cry, while Democrats are afraid to speak out for fear of being viewed as
soft on terrorism. Typical spineless Democrats. They might as well join the
Republican party, they’ve swung so far right.
Recently,
I heard that the highly respected Nelson Mandela state that the US has become a
threat to world peace. Over the past weeks and months, I have only heard of two
countries that support an attack on Iraq: Israel and Britain. Yet there are 190
countries in the UN. That leaves 187 countries that do not support such an
attack. Are we actually so arrogant as to think that the world is wrong and we
are right? I mean, the countries that neighbor Iraq feel no threat. Yet we do.
Since
the beginning of the so-called war on terrorism, we have imposed ourselves in
many parts of the world (in addition to the many other parts of the world where
we already were). Afghanistan. Georgia. Philippines. Colombia. Is it not time to
begin to battle domestic issues? To go to war against ourselves? The money we
are using to increase the Pentagon’s budget should be going towards healthcare
and education. Does it bother anyone that there are one-third more African
Americans in jail or prison than there are in college? Does it bother anyone
that we have over 2 MILLION people in prison, the largest among all industrial
countries? Does it matter to anyone that we still execute minors? Does it matter
to anyone that we have the lowest voter turnout rate in the world? Does it
matter to anyone that we STILL cannot get the voting booths to work in Florida?
I think that the UN should send election monitors to the US to monitor OUR
elections, instead of us going abroad!
But
if we want to focus on international issues, instead of domestic ones, we have
many to choose from. Choices that do not involve war. These are choices that
involve international cooperation, something we claim to champion. Why did we
“unsign” (a historic event!) from the International Criminal Court? Why did
we remove ourselves from the Kyoto Protocol on climate control? Why have we yet
to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Why have we yet to sign
the international treaty that bans the use of land mines? Why did we pull out of
the ABM treaty? And, to cut the list short, why do we continue to give Israel
unconditional support and $14 million a day for the past 25 years?
Bush’s
tough talk about his hate for states that sponsor terrorism should also be
directed at ourselves. Our role in this regard is too lengthy to list, so I will
mention only one: our state-sponsored and financed terrorism in regards to
Israel. Not too long ago, the Israeli military dropped a 1-ton bomb on a highly
populated neighborhood. They were out to assassinate ONE man. They got their
man, but killed 19 civilians in the process, including many children. The bomb
was dropped from a US built warplane.
Noam
Chomsky, political writer and linguist at MIT, stated that terrorism is “the
calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or
religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling
fear.” Where did he get this definition? From a US army manual. Thus,
according to our own definition, we are guilty of state-sponsored and financed
“terrorism”. (Yet Bush claims that every life is precious. If that were
true, we would immediately halt financial support for Israel.) In fact,
according to our own definition, WE are the terrorists! Never in the history of
the world has one country threatened another country, as we are threatening
Iraq. And it is definitely for political goals. And it is definitely about oil.
The US OILigarchy (including National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice, who was
on the Board of Directors of Chevron and even has an oil tanker named after
her!; Vice-President Dick Cheney, who was head of Halliburton, the largest oil
services company; Bush's connection to oil is obvious) appear more worried about
Iraq’s oil than their civilians. Let us not forget that we still buy $6
billion worth of Iraqi oil annually.
How
horrible it must be to be an ordinary Iraqi. Not only have economic sanctions
failed, they have resulted in the death of over a million innocent Iraqis. Now
these people have to deal with the prospect of a war against them. Everyday they
ask themselves, “When will the American bombs begin to drop? And when they
begin, will my children make it home from school? Will my neighborhood be
bombed? Will the local hospital be bombed? Will my family survive?” Meanwhile,
the American public is being manipulated by fear. To give just one example, the
Justice Department around September 11 of this year issued a statement that it
had credible reports that there would be a terrorist attack on US installations
abroad. Yet they put the US mainland on high alert. Why? Was the credible report
against an attack in the US or abroad? The answer: abroad. But this is the
government’s desire: to make us afraid. And when someone is afraid, they are
vulnerable. Vulnerable to manipulation. And the American public is being
manipulated, through fear, into agreeing with a war against Iraq. Even when
there is no credible threat. Even when there is no solid evidence. I for one do
not want to live in fear. And I don’t think that you do either. We must not
allow our government to continue this brainwashing of the public!
And
now that I am thinking about it, what is thing we are calling a “weapon of
mass destruction”? I am even hearing journalists using the abbreviated form:
WMDs. As far as I am concerned, the bomb that was dropped in that Palestinian
neighborhood was a “weapon of mass destruction”. The bombs we dropped in
Afghanistan that killed all those innocent civilians were “weapons of mass
destruction”.
I
would like to close by reminding everyone about another important 9-11. The year
was 1973. The democratically elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was
assassinated in a coup, backed and supported by the United States, using US
military hardware. What followed, led by the leader of the coup, General
Pinochet, was the murder and disappearance of thousands of innocent people,
including US citizens. As Americans, we must remember that innocent civilians
all around the world are victims of terrorist acts, including many supported by
the US. We got the horrible taste of terrorism for the first time on our home
soil. Instead of stopping and reflecting on our own 9-11, we chose to put on the
blinders and seek revenge. It is time to break the cycle of violence. It is time
to be brave and speak out. It is time for peace.
Michael
Casaus
Ph.D. Candidate, Cornell University
Tele:
505/496.7455
(Speech given at the Teach-in, Speak-out for Peace in Iraq, held October 28, 2002 at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM)
See More Speak-Out at www.PeaceAware.com Next Speaker on List