- War
on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know by William
Rivers Pitt.
- 1.There is no basis for
war. 2. Removing Saddam Hussein is pointless given the political
environment in Iraq. If the first basis is removed (i.e., reintroduction
of arms inspectors) the second will become Team Bush's focus.
The resulting conflict will not be a televised in-and-out affair
like the Persian Gulf War; there will be heavy casualties on
both sides, a complete destabilization of the Middle East, and
a terrible backlash of terrorist attacks on the U.S.--exactly
the kind of Islam vs. the West that al-Qaeda wants.
In this shocking exposé, William Rivers Pitt and former
U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter dismantle the myths surrounding
Iraq's present weapons capabilities to uncover the neo-conservative
forces behind the White House's push for war on Iraq.
During the seven years
that U.N. weapons inspections took place in Iraq, Ritter and
other inspectors confirmed that Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons programs had been effectively destroyed.
This fact undermines the Bush administration's false premise
for waging war on Iraq.
Pitt and Ritter go on to
explore the White House's premise for war, demonstrating among
many startling revelations, the utter lack of any plausible link
between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. We learn that Osama bin
Laden is in agreement with the Bush administration, and has called
for the death of Saddam Hussein. Pitt and Ritter highlight the
absurdity of Team Bush's dual aim of bringing down Hussein and
forcing democracy on a nation that has been divided for centuries.
Ritter enumerates the many ways in which it is impossible for
Iraq to pose a credible threat. WAR ON IRAQ closes with a stark
forecast for American troops if a ground war ensues and urges
the White House to seek a diplomatic solution before it is too
late.
The moderate Republican
case against war, October 6, 2002
Reviewer: Jeff Goodwin (see more about me) from New York, NY
USA
This book reviews a number of serious problems with the Bush
administration's case for invading Iraq. Its chief claims are
that U.N. weapons inspections worked effectively after 1991 to
neutralize Saddam Hussein's potential threat to his neighbors
and that inspections can continue to do so. (No serious analyst
claims that Saddam threatens the United States homeland.) The
claim by some amazon.com reviewers that the book is "socialist,"
"leftist," or "liberal" is ludicrous (as
is the implication that the book would automatically be wrong
if it actually were coming from any of these perspectives). Ritter
is one of a group of moderate Republicans who believe that there
are better ways of dealing with Iraq than by invading it. Some
hardline, Cheney-Wolfowitz thinking does occasionally slip into
the analysis. At one point, for example, Ritter opines, "We
really don't want democracy in Iraq [and Ritter makes it plain
that he is part of this "we"], because we don't want
the Shi'a [i.e., the majority of Iraq's population] to have control.
. . . And the truth is that we don't want the Kurds to have independence
anymore than the Turks do. . . . The United States has no interest
in democratically empowering that 23% of the population"
(pp. 59-60). (Actually, Cheney and Wolfowitz would only admit
this in private.) Still, this book is a good primer on the type
of mess an invasion of Iraq will create for ordinary Iraqis,
the region, and ourselves. |