Talking Points Against the War
When arguing with the pro-war crowd it is important to recall, as in arguing with theists, they are the ones with the burden of proof for justifying the war. And when they point to reasons other than WMDs please obliterate their arguments in the following manner, and/or refer them to this chronology of official statements. The following rationales for war are taken, verbatim, and unexpurgated, from the White House’s website, the 10/2/02 document used to justify the war to the nation, and the world. It is important to note the phrasing and rhetorical tricks used to puff up the rationales, before I parse them, and that mine seems to be the only direct assault on the Joint Resolution’s actual words, itself, at least online. In the section containing the reasons for war, there are twenty-four paragraphs, twenty-three of them beginning with the word whereas. In legal documents, especially contracts, and I’ve seen my share, terms as whereas generally denote new areas of contention resolved or separate points of agreement, with the break into paragraphs (generally numbered), and ended with a semi-colon, an easy way of delineating each presumed separate point.
Therefore, to a lay eye, it would seem reasonable that the twenty-three paragraphs beginning with whereas must denote twenty-three separate reasons that the war in Iraq should proceed. That is impressive sounding. But, look at each paragraph:
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
This is preamble to the reasons, not a reason, and was dealt with during the Gulf War. Tally: 1 paragraph, 0 reasons for war.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Still preamble, not a reason, but it is notable WMDs appear so early, as a hammer, in the section. It is now known, even though Saddam yanked around the UN for years, their inspections program actually worked! Tally: 2 paragraphs, 0 reasons for war.
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
The first reason- wholly debunked. To believe there were WMDs means the first break from reality has occurred. Just Google David Kay, Hans Blix, or Mohammed El Baradai. Tally: 3 paragraphs, 1 reason for war, 1 reason debunked.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
The second reason. This is true, but worth noting Saddam gave in, and inspections were going on until the US plans for invasion were a fait accompli. So, while rhetorically the statement is factual, as a reason for war it is iffy. I give it half-legitimacy. Tally: 4 paragraphs, 2 reasons for war, 1½ reasons debunked, ½ a reason true and relevant.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President ‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235);
First sleight of hand. This is recapitulation of paragraph 3, not a new reason, with the addendum we recognized Congress and the UN recognized what we claimed in that paragraph. Saying other parties recognized what we claimed does not make its debunking any less. Tally: 5 paragraphs, 2 reasons for war, 1½ reasons debunked, ½ a reason true and relevant.
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Really look at this paragraph. It restates what the earlier paragraphs did, which includes the debunked conclusions. This is a corollary to the idea terrorists represent as grave a threat to the world as the Nazis or Soviets. Nazi Germany was one of the most advanced industrial nations at the time, and part of a true Axis of Evil- replete with signed documents, while the Soviet Union was the only other superpower besides the US, and both regimes were eminently able to project menace across their borders. Iraq was not. Tally: 6 paragraphs, 2 reasons for war, 1½ reasons debunked, ½ a reason true and relevant.
A quarter through the twenty-four paragraphs we are on pace for two reasons for war, and neither will include the WMDs so prominent in the dire warnings of the White House propaganda machine. Peacocks would be proud of such puffery.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
This is true. The question is could such a statement reasonably be applied to other nations? Yes. As reason for war? Therein the rub. Were other reasons given supported this would have more weight. As they are not I give this a ½ reason. Tally: 7 paragraphs, 3 reasons for war, 2 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
True, but, this is just clarification of the prior reason, as this was done over a decade earlier, when the US looked the other way, and the fact we know the WMD gambit was bogus, this is added as rhetorical flourish, more specified, to burnish the earlier claim. But, as that was false, burnishing a lie with a truth becomes a dialectic tactic, not a truth, nor a reason. Yet, if this is a reason for war, why not war with Saddam between 1980 and 1990? He was one of our ‘good’ dictators then. This is how Orwellian newspeak works- couch a lie in a truth, even an irrelevant truth, at the time of the newspeak, and you will win converts. I am not one of them- I parse too well. Tally: 8 paragraphs, 3 reasons for war, 2 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 1 reason true but irrelevant. A nice mathematical progression, though.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
This is true. American planes were sporadically shot at and an assassination attempt on Bush the Elder was tried, but these things happen when you occupy part of a nation. There was never serious military action against the US, and this was mostly past tense as the war neared, for Saddam was capitulating. Note the openness of the phrasing of ‘continuing’ and ‘willingness’, to allow for maximum flexibility in interpreting what they mean. Another nice trick. By this rationale the North would have been justified in attacking the South during Reconstruction, for sporadic pockets of rebellion still existed. It’s a linguistic reason, not a literal one. Tally: 9 paragraphs, 4 reasons for war, 2 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 2 reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Note the phrasing. While true Al Quaida attacked us, not Iraq, and there were occasional members in Iraq, the implication of this paragraph is to clearly impute guilt on Iraq. We know, conclusively, Iraq was in no way, shape, nor form responsible for 9/11. We know there were at least twenty members of Al Quaida in America on 9/11. Does that mean we were culpable in attacking ourselves? This shows the utter lack of understanding of the way criminals- be they Mafiosi or terrorists- operate. If Saddam Hussein were Al Capone, who ran a fiefdom, then Osama bin Laden was John Dillinger. Of course, in similar circles there will be similar contacts, but that does not imply connection, as Capone and Dillinger were known to loathe each other, and never worked together, much as Saddam and Osama. This is the fallacy of the undistributed middle: X worked with Saddam. X worked with Osama. Therefore Saddam worked with Osama. Not so. Tally: 10 paragraphs, 5 reasons for war, 3 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 3 reasons true but irrelevant. Because this statement is debunked and irrelevant it gets notches in both columns, making the reason’s realities surpass their number.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
True, on its face. There were non-Al Quaida groups Iraq supported, mostly Palestinian splinter groups, but none operated out of that sphere, nor posed the threat Al Quaida did. This is a false implication. Tally: 11 paragraphs, 6 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4 reasons true but irrelevant. Another reason that notches into two columns.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
This is true, but a restatement of the earliest posits about WMDs, and as Iraq did not possess WMDs, irrelevant. Tally: 12 paragraphs, 6 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4 reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Still just restating earlier claims about WMDs. Restating a falsehood does not make it truer. Note this paragraph is longer than the earlier paragraphs, and couches lies (the possession of WMDs), and assumptions (Iraq had US attack plans) in truths, then actually, in a Freudian slip, uses the word ‘justify’. Simply put, this is not a reason. Tally: 13 paragraphs, 6 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4 reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
This legalese says earlier justifications and authorizations for possible war still apply, even though the UN actively sought to prevent this war at the time it was launched. Technically, much is true, although the WMD lie persists, because the UN’s approach was working. To go to war on this would be to engage technocratic war. Interesting fact: current US ‘friends’ are Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Israel, and Turkey- all have violated UN resolutions and all have been cited for human rights violations. None have real democracies, another reason for the war post facto cobbled together when there were no WMDs found. Here are other US allies that are non-democratic and brutal: Oman, Uzbekistan, Azerbeijan, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Kuwait. Were I them I would make sure to stay in good stead with the US. I weight this paragraph ½ true, but irrelevant. Amazing, how many different angles and gambits are rhetorically tried in this document. Tally: 14 paragraphs, 7 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President ‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;
This makes the prior paragraph seem Dick & Jane. This is not a reason for war, merely an explanation, and another recapitulation of prior points, most proven false. Tally: 15 paragraphs, 7 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, ‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’;
More recapitulation of prior Congressional and UN approvals, and Iraq’s repression. Nothing new, certainly not a separate reason. Tally: 16 paragraphs, 7 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
More recapitulation- Congress supported unspecified possible actions in the unspecified future for unspecified reasons, now given as regime change, and promotion of democracy. Just a reason- no truth or not involved, but not good enough to go to war, as other reasons have failed, and other regimes were as bad. Tally: 17 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to ‘work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to ‘work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that ‘the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;
Again- Iraq is bad, we gotta do something. Recapitulation, and not applicable as Iraq had complied prior to the war. Tally: 18 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant. Three-quarters of the way though and only eight reasons for war, and one legitimate one (or, rather, two ½ reasons).
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Has a rhetorical pattern emerged? Iraq was not involved in 9/11, and the terrorists it affiliated with were not Al Quaida members. Another redundant restatement. Tally: 19 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
More restatement. If I have to point out what, you should never have graduated from elementary school. Tally: 20 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Acid flashback? An almost direct recapitulation of the prior paragraph. Sententiousness anyone? Tally: 21 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Legalese, not a reason. Tally: 22 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
How is this a national security issue, if Iraq was not involved in 9/11? Dare those three little letters resurface? O-i-l? While not the dominant issue in the war, to deny it is in the top five is silly. American soldiers have reported oil fields get far more protection than military commissaries. Why? There is another related issue to oil- control of the Tigris-Euphrates river basin, and usage of its waters for irrigation and human consumption. This could lead to food independence in many of areas which, combined with our refusal to wean ourselves from oil, could lead to even greater US dependence, as we would need them more than they would need us. But- national security? Not a reason, especially since pro-warriors vigorously deny oil’s role in the equation. If they won’t admit it, they cannot use it as a reason. Tally: 23 paragraphs, 8 reasons for war, 4 reasons debunked, 1 reason true and relevant, 4½ reasons true but irrelevant.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Not a reason, merely coda to the section that enumerates the justifications for going to war. Now, disagreements over politics, or my assignment of weights, aside, there is no getting around the fact that there are only eight posited reasons for war, or one for every three paragraphs- one of which was WMDs- not the ‘over a dozen other reasons’ the pro-warriors parrot. A cold look at this ‘official’ statement posits these eight reasons, in descending order of listing (and presumed importance/relevance to the pro-war cause):
- WMDs
- Iraqi post-Gulf War intransigence
- Iraqi brutality
- minor and pallid Iraqi retaliations
- nebulous links to Al Quaida
- links to other terrorists
- prior Congressional and UN war approval
- regime change/promote democracy
That’s it. WMDs were debunked, which undercuts prior approvals for war, predicated on such. Links to Al Quaida were false, and other terrorists sponsored were no imminent threat. Iraqi hostilities were minor and fey. Regime change is an abstraction, not an imputation of guilt, as the others. That leaves only two reasons of the eight, and of those two reasons- Iraqi post-Gulf War intransigence, and Iraqi brutality- each has only partial legitimacy in justifying our aggression. The intransigence became total capitulation, but we would not accept it, and Iraqi brutality was no worse than other despotic regimes, and given the number of Iraqi casualties in the two years since war’s start, arguably no worse, and perhaps better, than the current situation- in terms of life expectancy.
That’s it, folks. The whole of the White House argument for war! That anti-warriors, be they liberals, conservatives, or moderates, like me, have not shoved this nonsense back in the pro-war crowd’s faces suggests how dominant the delusional mindset has become, where even opponents are silenced by the weakest of opposition. The next time you hear the other ‘reasons’ for the war, hammer them with this, and that WMDs were the first stated reason, and how wan the other reasons were. Twenty-four paragraphs and only two semi-legitimate reasons for war within.
The rest is puffery, a technocrat’s wet dream- a fine print war. For WMDs were clearly put forth in 72 point bold font, while the rest were in 6 point regular font. While not a scientific survey by any means, a quick recent Google search, fairly representative of online and media references to things, as well as that in the blogosphere and chatrooms, netted me this many links for key terms:
I used versions of terms most cogent, with the highest number of links. For example- ‘Iraqi Links To Al Quaeda’ got 1,120,000 links while ‘Iraqi Links To Al Quaida’ got only 18,300, so I went with the higher figure. Leaving out assorted variations on both sides, variants of WMDs, the major reason put forth got 11,180,000 links out of the 14,378,900 total, or 77.75%, while all the other reasons combined got about 22.25%. Round it off and say WMDs were about 75% of the reason put forth for war and most people will agree, regardless of what they feel now. Clearly, the pro-warriors are being incredibly disingenuous when they claim there were other reasons for the war, because WMDs, and Condo Rice’s ‘mushroom clouds’ were jammed down our throats, as coverage of her recent State Secretary confirmation hearings reminded us via the news.
Let me end this section by reiterating the difference in approaches I used in my Vietnam-Iraq parallels vis-à-vis those used by the White House, and their blogging acolytes. I purposely distilled my arguments down to a few talking points- eight, from well over a hundred possible points of minutia while they took eight reasons for war, and tried to puff them up to nearly three times as many. This is important to note; it is the difference between honest argumentation (even if you disagree with me) and blatant propagandizing (which was clearly the White House’s, and their supporters, intent).
