Questions and answers about war on Iraq

No. First of all, none of Iraq's neighbors have expressed any fear of Iraqi aggression, and all of them oppose a US war - including Kuwait, the country Iraq invaded in 1991.

In the Gulf war, US military forces crushed Iraq's in just days. Iraq was clearly not a threat to the US back then, so it could hardly be one today, after more than ten years of bombing and sanctions have devastated the country's infrastructure. Scott Ritter, former head of the UN inspections team for Iraq insists that Iraq presents "absolutely nothing" of a military threat.

In terms of a terrorist threat, even the CIA maintains that it is precisely a US attack that could provoke Iraq into the use of terrorism. CIA Director George Tenet said in a recent letter to Congress, "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States. Should Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."

According to Scott Ritter, former head of the UN inspections team for Iraq, "The people who claim that Iraq has these weapons today are also the same people saying 'We should not send weapons inspectors back to Iraq,' because they know very well that if you send weapons inspectors back to Iraq, the basis upon which they've made these outlandish claims will be reduced to about zero."

According to the New York Times, Iraq has no more than 40 missiles with a range longer than 90 miles, and none with a range of more than 390 miles. The CIA also admits that Iraq doesn't have the capacity to launch missiles against the US. In March 2001, the CIA said that "Most agencies believe that Iraq is unlikely to test before 2015 any [intercontinental ballistic missiles] that would threaten the United States, even if UN prohibitions were eliminated or significantly reduced in the next few years."

Contrary to Bush administration claims, no one with any expertise on nuclear weapons or on the country's weapons capacity believes that Iraq has them. The International Institute for Strategic Studies in London maintains, "Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons, and "it would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile production facilities." David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, spoke with experts at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and reports that they disagree with Bush's assertions about Iraq's facilities being capable of producing enriched uranium, "but they have been ordered to keep quiet."

Yes, but what those promoting this war always neglect to mention is that Hussein was a US ally when he used poison gas against the Kurdish opposition in northern Iraq, killing up to 5,000 people in the village of Halabja. In fact, the US itself supplied Iraq with all sorts of chemical and biological weapons long after it knew that these weapons were being used in its war against Iran, and even the "crop-spraying" helicopters used in chemical attacks on the Kurds were provided by the US.

Then-Secretary of State George Shultz met with an Iraqi foreign minister to discuss the attack, and one State Department official summarized the contents of the meeting as saying to Iraq: "We want to have a good relationship with you, but this sort of thing makes it very difficult." The US continued to support Hussein for several years after that and tried to downplay his use of chemical weapons. For example, on April 12, 1990, five top U.S. senators (including Bob Dole, Howard Metzenbaum and Frank Murkowski) traveled to Baghdad to deliver a private message from President Bush that the US wanted closer relations with Iraq, notwithstanding Hussein's record. Furthermore, one of the US' top candidates to replace Saddam is the Iraqi general who was the field commander in charge of the gas attack on Halabja.

While Hussein's use of chemical weapons was truly barbaric, it has nothing to do with US officials' real reasons for pursuing "regime change." Only when they wanted to go to war against Iraq and needed to convince the world that it was justified did they develop a concern about their former friend's brutality.

No, the UN weapons inspectors left in December of 1998 because Washington ordered them out of Iraq in preparation for a bombing campaign called Operation Desert Fox. A few weeks later, it was revealed that the UN inspection teams had been spying for the US, as Iraq had long alleged. The information gathered was used to identify targets for the US to bomb.

This September, Hussein agreed to allow weapons inspectors back in, but the Bush administration was afraid that Iraq would pass the inspections and deprive them of a rationale for war. Colin Powell personally intervened to prevent chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix from going to Iraq until the UN passed a resolution that would make it easy for the US to declare that Iraq had failed to comply. Whether Iraq complies or not, the US intends to use the inspections to provide a pretext for war. In the words of Victor Mizin, who worked in Iraq as an inspector during the 1990s, "If there is a stalemate on inspections, it could be that the inspectors will have to stage some kind of provocation. The alternative is wait and hope that the Iraqis commit some kind of mistake and create an incident themselves."

No. The US backed Hussein's brutal regime for years, and its reasons for opposing him now have nothing to do with democracy. The US has never been a genuine supporter of democracy in the Middle East, having backed the corrupt dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah, the Gulf monarchies, and of course Iraq itself. One of the main post-war options being considered by the US - a military occupation headed by Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of US forces in the Persian Gulf - would bear no resemblance to democracy. The so-called Iraqi opposition now being funded and trained by the US to is a made up of corrupt opportunists and supporters of the old monarchy with absolutely no legitimacy or support within Iraq.

Only the Iraqi people have the right to make a "regime change" in Iraq, and only they can bring democracy there. At the end of the Gulf war, they tried and were very nearly successful, staging a massive revolt that swept the country. Instead of supporting the Iraqis' efforts to overthrow Hussein, Washington gave him permission to crush the rebellion because it viewed the people of Iraq determining their own future as a bigger threat to its interests than Hussein's regime.

But there's even more overwhelming evidence that the US doesn't care about Iraqis. The US is the main force behind the UN sanctions, which it claims are designed to contain Hussein. The sanctions have not hurt him, but they have killed at least a million innocent civilians by making it impossible for hospitals, power plants, and water treatment facilities to function. In particular, infant mortality has skyrocketed.

Oil is the most obvious and widely acknowledged reason. Iraq has the world's second-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Whether through a direct occupation or the installation of a friendly government that owes its existence to Washington, the US hopes to gain control of this oil and the massive profits to be made from selling it. It also hopes to dimish OPEC's power over oil supplies and prices. As Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "If the real motives were made clear-that this is a grab for oil and an attempt to break the back of OPEC - it would make our motives look more predatory than exemplary."

Iraq's oil is a major factor, but it not the only reason. The Bush administration benefits politically from creating a war frenzy, which draws attention away from problems at home and inflates the president's popularity. Bush also wants to make an example out of Iraq, to demonstrate for the rest of the world what happens to a nation that defies the US.

Perhaps the biggest motivation was laid out in the National Security Strategy document known as the Bush Doctrine. Submitted to Congress in September, it presents the Bush administration's vision of the US as the world's unchallenged superpower. The Doctrine advocates that the US maintain its position of supremacy by using its military power pre-emptively and unilaterally, refusing to be bound by international treaties or organizations, and preventing the emergence of any economic or military rivals. In short, Bush wants a world in which the US is unrestrained in using economic power and military force to impose its will around the world, and the war on Iraq is the next step.

They should care because the war would cost them dearly, and because US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would be killed. According to White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey, the war against Iraq could cost $100 to $200 billion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) thinks the Bush administration’s figures are too low. At any rate, the cost would be obscenely high, and it would be on top of the annual US military spending of more than $400 billion. This would mean drastic cuts in social spending for things such as education and health care, which would intensify the economic crisis already taking place. Hundreds of thousands of workers laid off because of the recession are reaching the end of their unemployment benefits, and yet on October 16 Congress voted down an extention of jobless benefits and an increase in the minimum wage - it is not in the interest of ordinary people in the US for their government to squander the country's resources on war. Not even including the expense of a war on Iraq, a little over one month of US military spending could lift every American child out of poverty for a year.

Just as importantly, this war would also be paid for with the blood of Iraqi civilians, whose lives have already been made a living hell under the US-imposed UN sanctions. People in the US should speak out against Bush's readiness to kill innocents in their name - because it is the right thing to do, and because such a war would give rise to even deeper hatred toward the US that may threaten the lives of innocent people here.