BuzzFlash
presents Southern Style
by Rebecca Knight
July
11, 2002
Consequences of War
by Rebecca Knight
"We must use our vast resources of wealth to aid the undeveloped countries of the world. We have spent far too much of our national budget in establishing military bases around the world and far too little in establishing bases of genuine concern and understanding."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
It could very well be that the terrorists who accomplished the heinous acts of September 11, 2001, have America right where they want us. Immediately our leaders went to the war option wreaking havoc on a nation that was already living in the Stone Age due to decades of viscous battles with multiple enemies. Just exactly how did that impact the terrorist organizations and their ability to continue to disrupt American way of life? Does anyone believe that the terrorists have any concern about the citizens of Afghanistan? What do we really know about the resulting impact our bombing had on the terrorists?
The Bush administration has consistently kept the press from having any access to the military campaign in Afghanistan. This makes it very easy for the administration to control the public's perception of the success or failure of our military actions. However, some things are perfectly clear even without in-depth reporting. The original target, Osama bin Laden, who was "wanted dead or alive," is still lurking somewhere, doing who knows what. The bombing has also given terrorists even more reason to despise America.
Here at home, we exist in an almost constant state of alert. Color-coded warnings are issued, public transportation is forever changed, perceptions about middle-eastern ethnicity cause innocents to be feared or harassed, and our civil liberties are severely altered. No one can doubt the negative impact that terrorism is having on American society. Yes, we go about out daily routines as if things are normal, but they are far from it.
The Bush administration might be better titled the Keystone Cops in their bumbling efforts to calm our fears. First we don't need a cabinet level department of Homeland Security, but wait, maybe we do after all. They don't have an actual plan for organizing this new department, except that it will not include agencies responsible for investigating terrorism like the FBI, the CIA, or the NSA. Congress can figure that out. Sure! Turn it all over to Congress and then don't provide funding for it in the next fiscal year. Then announce a major "dirty bomb" plot has been disrupted. Oh, wait, it was one guy and he didn't actually have the materials needed to carry out the plot. And, by the way, he was arrested a month before the stunning announcement was made.
War is expensive. Keep in mind that the U.S. already spends more on defense than all other nations combined. Rumsfeld warned Congress recently that dire consequences would result if it does not approve $14 billion in emergency spending for the Pentagon by July 15. Now it is being reported that the Bush administration has requested $15.5 million to develop a new nuclear weapon designed to be used in conventional combat that is likely to be used against states that don't have nuclear weapons. Bush also wants to spend billions on his missile defense system, which many experts say will never work. Where will this money come from? The federal budget is already shot and we are into deficit spending. Borrow and spend. Ring any bells? Seems we went through this before under Reagan and it took years to get the federal budget back on track. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that this may be a contributing factor to the lack of an economic recovery and the stagnation of the stock market.
Who is benefiting here at home by the increase in defense spending? The defense corporate conglomerates like the Carlyle Group, including James Baker III, Frank Carlucci, and George H. W. Bush.(1,2,3)
The oil factor is also involved in the economic aspect of this war. It is interesting that many of the countries apparently harboring terrorists control vast oil resources. Should they decide to hold back their supply of oil to the U.S. the impact could be devastating to our economy.
Now Bush 43 and company are bound and determined to take up the cause that Bush 41 left undone in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a ruthless enemy and he must go. That is Bush's logic, but does it translate into successful military action? It is possible that launching a major military action against Iraq will throw the entire Middle East into such turmoil that it will cause us even more problems worldwide. There is also the possibility that Saddam is already boxed in to such an extent that he is unlikely to ever use whatever weapons he has available. If his goal were to reign as the leader of Iraq for the rest of his natural life, aggressive actions ordered by him would almost definitely lead to his death. However, if he is cornered by a U.S. attack, it makes sense that he will choose to go out in a blaze of glory by using his weapons against Israel. We are living in vastly different times than when Bush 41 launched the Gulf War. The Middle East is much more of a powder keg ready to explode and Bush 43 is walking a dangerous tightrope. An article in Fortune.com entitled "How A War With Iraq Will Change The World" succinctly covers this situation.(4)
Threatening war against Iraq and other countries may involve other consequences. A threat reportedly given to the Taliban prior to 9/11 failed to deter the terrorists from their agenda and the strong possibility exists that they made a pre-emptive strike as a result of that threat. What is to keep Hussein or other terrorists from doing the same thing, striking the U.S. or Israel before the U.S. attacks Iraq or other nations?
Bush has put the U.S. in the position of being the ugly American. With his ridiculous pronouncement of the "axis of evil" he has challenged the world. He has warned that terrorists exist in as many as sixty different nations and he is preparing to go anywhere and do anything to dismantle terrorism where it lives. It may be that Texas mentality, the "we're number one" ego, that is getting the better of him. Americans should be concerned about whether these threats diminish the likelihood of future attacks or incite more anger and determination against us.
So we are engaged in a long-term war on terrorism. How will we know when we have won and the war can end? How can any president ever check the pulse of terrorism from the Oval Office and understand that those who hate America have put their hatred aside and will never plot against us again? This is insanity. It simply cannot be done. This situation calls for skills in diplomacy, creative thinking, and imagination. These are skills that Bush simply does not possess. These are times that cry out for seasoned reasonable discussions and leaders of wisdom. These are times that find Bush sorely lacking. These are times when America desperately needs someone better prepared to be commander-in-chief.
There are times when war is the only option. In those times Americans support their fighting men and women with an unequaled dedication. One has to question whether this is one of those times. Is war currently our best option simply because George W. Bush says it is?
Frankly, I don't want my America to be known as "ugly" or willing to attack other nations simply because we are stronger, more prosperous, or possess the military ability to do so. These are better reasons not to attack. America should strive to lead the world by reason and not by might. And it is appalling that Bush's vision of America would be to develop usable nuclear weapons.
The consequences of war are tremendous. I hope one of the consequences of this "war on terrorism" will be the election of a new president. Bush must go in 2004, if not before!
* * *
(1) http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
(2) http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2001/12/11/3c15aae1abad4
(3) http://events.redherring.com/vc/2002/0111/947.html
(4) http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=208461
* * *
Rebecca Knight is a native Tennessean, who grew up in Nashville, and currently resides in a small town near Nashville. Ms. Knight's political awareness evolved through the civil rights movement, the Vietnam era, the Watergate era, and the cold war. The debacle of the 2000 election increased her sense of responsibility for political activism. You may contact Rebecca Knight via e-mail at tennessee_gal655@yahoo.com.
© 2002 by Rebecca Knight
