Anti-war chorus is sign U.S. needs to slow war machine

(FinalCall.com) - Though a spokesman denied that a White House pow-wow, scheduled for Aug. 21 at President Bush�s ranch in Texas, will be a huddle to plot war, Iraq and President Saddam Hussein will certainly be on the agenda.

What should also be on the agenda for this meeting and others is a thorough review of Mr. Bush�s public commitment to removing the Iraqi leader and the need for a major dialog about whether war with Iraq is the right course for the United States.

Not only have cracks developed in the coalition of U.S. allies, fissures have started to surface within the president�s own party.

It is also troubling that as of Aug. 19 media reports, Secretary of State Colin Powell has been excluded from the Texas meeting. If the reports turn out to be true, Americans should worry that their president is getting an abundance of advice from hawks, like Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. What the president needs is good advisors and excluding those who may not see war as the best option is not wise.

In the case of Mr. Powell, the man credited with leading a campaign that decimated the Iraqi military over a decade ago is apparently being shunted to the sidelines.

When Brent Scowcroft, national security advisor to the first President George Bush, House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Republican Senators Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Chuck Hagel (Neb.) are urging caution, the U.S. commander-in-chief might want to rethink his public position and engage in some serious consultations.

European allies, Germany and Russia included, and Gulf States, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia included, have already expressed misgivings about any military strike against Iraq.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has added his voice to a growing chorus calling for U.S. restraint and high-level diplomacy.

Months ago, the leader of the Nation of Islam warned Mr. Bush that a unilateral attack on Iraq would leave the U.S. isolated from its friends and galvanize enemies into a holy war against the world�s only superpower.

With the Israeli-Palestinian situation as tense as ever, a still uncertain picture in Afghanistan and more and more people at home wondering if war is a necessity, wisdom dictates caution. Arrogance, and a go-at-it-alone macho attitude, can only lead to disaster.

The U.S. has yet to prove its allegations that Saddam harbors weapons of mass destruction and has squandered sympathy gained from the horrific Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

And while U.S. officials may want to make Saddam the personification of evil in the world and the object of a moral crusade, America�s hands aren�t clean.

According to an Aug. 17 article in the New York Times, Reagan-era intelligence sources gave Saddam "critical battle planning assistance" knowing that Iraqi military commanders would use chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. wanted to make sure Iran did not disrupt access to Middle East oil.

It appears that use of biological, chemical or weapons of mass destruction was no concern for the U.S. during the 1981-1988 war between Iraq and Iran. Yet, it is the use of deadly gas that President Bush and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice tout as proof of Saddam�s wickedness and propensity to use deadly weapons.

Selective morality and double-dealing don�t increase international respect for America. They only increase a growing sense of frustration felt not only in the Arab world, but also in Europe, and elsewhere. If the world�s only superpower wants to claim the mantle of moral leadership, it must abide by principles of justice and fair dealing. Citing noble principles when convenient isn�t enough to sway world opinion.

FinalCall.com