LOS ANGELES - The United States Congress has spoken. Not with a roar, but with a whimper, handing President George W Bush a blank check to go to war against Iraq because of the `imminent threat' it supposedly poses to America. One is reminded of the pathetic spectacle of Roman senators groveling at feet of emperor Tiberius. .
The notion of Iraq, a demolished nation of 22.3 million posing an `imminent threat' to the United States, a nation of 281 million, is ludicrous. In fact, anti-Saddam Kurds and rebellious southern Shia Muslims comprise 17.7 million, or 79%, of Iraq's population, leaving only 4.6 million Sunnis who more or less support the regime. That's 4.6 million, about the population of Hong Kong.
But a steady drumbeat of bellicose propaganda, pressure from powerful special interests thirsting to destroy Iraq, and election year politics have combined to stampede Congress and many Americans into believing this grotesque, Orwellian fiction.
Illustrating war fever in Washington and the growing irrationality of the White House, President Bush last week compared his impending jihad against Iraq to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and himself to John F. Kennedy. I was in Washington during the Cuban crisis and vividly recall its drama and dangers. The Soviets had nuclear tipped missiles ready to strike the US. What the US faces with Iraq - which has no long-ranged missiles or other delivery systems for bulky chemical munitions or highly complex systems for dispensing germs - is nothing comparable. And George W. Bush is no John F. Kennedy.
Not content with this silly comparison, Bush went on to actually claim Iraq was poised to attack the United States using remotely piloted aircraft guided from Baghdad, a mere 13,000 kms away. Bush must have cribbed this preposterous fantasy from an old comic, `Dr Fu Manchu and His Drones of Death.' In the mighty US, long-ranged drones are still in the testing stage. The claim that Iraq has perfected such sophisticated technology - which relies extensively on satellite guidance - and can remotely pilot an ancient crop duster from Baghdad to New York is laughable.
Last week, CIA Director George Tenet took the courageous step of publicly refuting Bush's claim that Iraq was an imminent threat. Tenet's unprecedented rebuke was a warning to America, but it also signaled the deep resentment felt in the US intelligence community over the way Israel's intelligence service, Mossad, and its American helpers, have become the White House's primary source of decision-making information on Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and Afghanistan. Tenet was immediately attacked and denounced by neo-conservative commentators, though a number of senior Israeli officers, including the head of military intelligence, have echoed Tenet's assertions that there was no immediate risk from Iraq unless it is invaded.
Meanwhile, another revolt has erupted, this time in conservative ranks. A new magazine, `The American Conservative,' was launched in Washington this month. Created by veteran politician Patrick Buchanan, columnist Taki, and former NY Post Editor Scott McConnell, the magazine features hard-hitting attacks by noted Republican theorist Kevin Phillips; Justin Raimondo, editor of the excellent web site, antiwar.com; and pieces by Buchanan, Peter Brimelow and this writer on Bush's promotion of war psychosis and the corruption of the conservative movement.
Philips sums up the reasons for the rebellion, accusing the Bush Administration of representing `the economics of privilege, the foreign policy of war, and the culture of guns and Sun Belt fundamentalism.' Phillips rightly blames the current melt-down of the US stock market on an `Enron-Armageddon fusion.' The Bush Administration, writes Phillips, `mixes greed, inept economic management, business corruption, crony capitalism, triumphalist Pentagon saber-rattling and Axis of Evil foreign policy theology on a scale that already boggles foreign commentators.'
Many traditional conservatives are now accusing neo-conservatives and Christian fundamentalists of having hijacked not only the conservative movement, but US foreign policy as well. Neo-conservatives are militant ideologists representing the views of Ariel Sharon's far-right Likud Party in Israel (though not of half of Israelis who oppose Likud's aggressive policies). These neo-cons view the world through the lens of what they deem is good for Israel and bad for its enemies and, accordingly, are pressing the US into a war against much of the Muslim World. In many ways, these war-lusting neo-cons are the mirror image of Osama bin Laden and his anti-western al-Qaida movement. Both want an all-out clash of civilizations and religions.
It's harder to say what America's conservative rebels represent: their views vary greatly from Buchanan neo-isolationists to European-style conservatives like myself who are strict with public finances but liberal on social issues. But the conservative rebels are united on one point: the burn Baghdad neo-cons and Sunbelt religious Armageddonites like odious Gerry Falwell do not speak for America's mainstream conservatives. True conservatives hark back to two leaders of great moral stature, honesty, and true patriotism, men who bore the American flag inside their hearts, not on their lapels: President Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater.
Sadly, the conservative revolt is probably too late. Rather than face a collapsing stock market and enraged voters, President Bush has chosen to distract them with a jolly little war against a nation that cannot effectively fight back.
Foreign Correspondent