Customer Reviews

Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War Primer

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This short, highly readable book summarizes in one place many of the arguments against the war with Iraq. It is trying to arm the reader with a basis for opposition to the war and provides a list of resources that can get people active. It lays out the international prohibition on the use of force, the two exceptions permitted under the U.N. Charter, and explains the various United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq. It details the Bush Administrations justifications for a new war, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction and points out how its claims are misleading, exaggerated or false. It analyzes many of the alleged rationalizations for the war, finds them unconvincing and proceeds to discuss what this war is really about. It summarizes the early roots of the doctrine of preemptive strikes and explains the war as one for oil and U.S. world domination. The book also contains a section on the serious consequences and dangers such a war will have for the people of Iraq, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Best single book on Iraq.

AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER is a frightening description of the Bush Administration's plan for world dominance. It points out that there is no tangible proof of any connection between Saddam and bin Laden, and that "weapons of mass destruction" is not at the root of the war. Rather, the Bush Administration is interested in controlling the second largest oil reserve in the world, which Iraq just happens to sit on top of. Iraq is also a good target in this plan because it is just a defenseless country, thus sending a graphic message to the rest of the world of our military capabilities. Yet another advantage of attacking Iraq is the fact that it lies at the center of the Middle East, providing the US a good opportunity to weaken the region's stability even further and establish a USA presence that can later be expanded.

AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER also provides the chilling account of US crackdown on civil liberties in the name of "protecting our freedoms," and how other countries have followed suit. It also notes that terrorism increased during the preparation for war with Iraq, and that it most likely will increase if we *do* go to war (note: this book was published a few weeks before the outbreak of the war).

Most frightening of all is the revelation that the war with Iraq is just phase one in the Bush Administration's quest for global dominance. The idea is to scare the rest of the world, to let them know that the US has a right to attack whenever they feel, without sufficient proof of any wrong doing - this is called a "preventive attack" (meaning the USA can attack any country it *thinks* may be planning to attack us, no proof is needed). As this book points out, the great irony is that while the official justification for the war with Iraq is to do away with their "weapons of mass destruction," the war with Iraq will only increase weapons of mass destruction because other countries are now afraid of the USA and will want to stock up protection to defend themselves against the USA. We can strike whenever we want (boy, I love how those euphamisms make things so much prettier than they really are: unions strike; the US military is *bombing* and killing), so countries will need to protect themselves.

I picked up AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER hoping to learn more about what is really going on. I found what is in these pages to be so horrifying that I almost wish I hadn't read it. I now understand why so many Americans believe that the war is about protecting our freedoms: it's too frightening to realize that we have a government that is lying to us this much and is willing - and able - to sacrifice innocent human lives in the quest for money.

Written before the current jihad began, but no less useful, this book outlines why the U.S. has no authority to unilalaterally bomb a sovereign country. Resolution 1441 stated merely a listed of extremely heavy conditions for Iraq to comply or else it would be declared in "material breach." It called for the convening of the security council to hear the inspector's report. There was nothing explicitly granting the United states to bomb if Iraq was declared in "material breach." Article 51 of the UN charter declares that no state can act militarily against another without security council approval or if they country is under immediate and sustained attack. The UN charter does not endorse the doctrine now explicity endorsed by the extreme reactionaries currently at the helm of power in Washington that the U.S. has the right to "pre-emptively" attack any country it feels to be threatened by, even if that threat is not imminent.

They note that the U.S. has obtained security council votes in an extremely compromsing way. E.G. cutting off aid to Yemen after it voted against a U.S. draft resolution back in 1990. They note that congressman Henry Gonzales drafted a bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. for the many "bribes and threats" used to get UN approval. In current times, it seems some backroom deals have been made with the French and the Russians to secure their existing oil contracts with Saddam post-war which is what the latter are really concerned about. American oil companies will probably have first pick of the oil resources. The Americans will install a pro-American government that will do America's bidding in the oil rivalries with OPEC, they write.

And indeed the authors point out that Iraq is not an imminent threat, that U.S. intelligence deny this. They note that Richard Butler reported to the security council in January 1999 that the inspection process had made Saddam "substantially disarm." They quote the conservative anaylst Anthony Cordesman that it is likely that stocks of biological and chemical weapons retained by Iraq after the gulf war have lost their viability. They quote Scott Ritter that the 800 or so mustard gas shells that Iraq is reportedly to have, does not represent any sort of option for them on the battlefield. Nor do the dozen or so blastic missles. And they do not have the technology to produce any significant amount of VX nerve gas, and the equipment they did have was found and destroyed by the inspectors in 96' and found never to have been used. They note that the International Atomic energy agency certified in October 1997 that Iraq was in "full, final and complete" compliance with its nuclear weapons program. They note in an endnote that the evidence about Iraq trying to gain enriched uranium from Africa is very tenuous, it simply does not have the infrastructure (this book was published before it came out from the IAEA that U.S. documents purporting to show Iraq's aquisition of uranuim from Niger were forgeries).

They point out, of course, Saddam's regime is unbelievabably bestial but that did not bother United States and its British lietenant when he was "gassing his own people" back in the 80's. They gave him substantial support to build up his arsenal of WMD. The link to Bin Laden is unlikely for the supposed meeting in the Czech republic seemed not to have taken place and Saddam would not want to give weapons to independent-minded fundamentalists who have a goal of overthrowing his secular dictatorship.

Most importantly they note that people seem not to care much about the humanitarian impact on Iraqis. U.S. bombing has and will continue to destroy much of Iraq's vital civilian infrastructure. Estimates vary about total casualties: from like 48,000 to 200,000. If Saddam does have any substantial WMD and is backed into a corner, there is no doubt he will use them. Various nations with bad human rights records like Russia, China, India, Israel have a green light to conduct terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism. Wahabi terrorism increased in late 2002 and will surely do so as a result of what happens in Iraq.

They note in an endnote that the dim-witted disciple of Jesus currently in the white house was not telling the truth when he said that Iraq was diverting oil for food money for weapons. Such money is placed in an escrow account in New York with purchases made by it directed by the United nations. They note that it is rather unlikely the president's claim that Iraq has possessions of drones that are capable of flying undetected accross other countries and U.S. military bases to bomb the United States.

If you want to know what this coming war with Iraq is about, read this book. This books explains it well and does so in an easliy understnadable manner. It is critical of Hussein, but demonstrates that he is not an imminent threat. The book points out that the real threat is from a war--a major increase in terror. If you read on short book about the war, this is it.

If you want to know what this coming war with Iraq is about, read this book. This books explains it well and does so in an easliy understnadable manner. It is critical of Hussein, but demonstrates that he is not an imminent threat. The book points out that the real threat is from a war--a major increase in terror. If you read on short book about the war, this is it.

If you've ordered this book and read it, then you've taken the first step to freeing your mind from all the garbage the media suffocates us with. And if you swallow these eye-opening books like I do then I earnestly recommed anything by Noam Chomsky, as well as these two books, which will no doubt enlighten you about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq: (1) War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq (Milan Rai); and (2) STUPID WHITE MEN (Michale Moore). And if you love a good laugh, here's a satire on Bush and the media: The little samba boy (Jay Singh). The truth is out there.

I read this book at a friend's house, and I must say that I found it wholly lacking in the sort of rigorous logic that you might expect from a book with its title. Many of the arguments selected incomplete data to support points which seemed transparently biased. I had been hoping to get an even-handed view of the subject, but to no avail. If you are looking to support a pre-determined point of view with half-baked facts and emotional assertions, then get this book. For everything else, look elsewhere!

I purchased this book because I am a centrist on the war issue and was hoping it would present logical and cogent reasons against war with Iraq. While I was eager for persuasive and compelling arguments I was also expecting that the book would take a fair-minded look at BOTH sides of the issue and then reason convincingly against a war with Iraq.
It didn't do that, instead it took every pro-Iraqi statement as being the gospel truth while everything that was damaging to Saddam was relegated as disinformation. After reading the book I felt that I had just read a propaganda guide put out but the Iraqi Information services.

Where is the evenhandedness that is fundamental to deliberations of this magnitude?

Should not the specifics, both pro and con, be presented? Of course they should, but the book neglects this miserably.

I was also looking for a synoptic background of Saddam Hussein and his rise to power. Devoid of crucial background information, the reader is ill-equipped to make any deductions about what potential action(s) should or should not be taken. Remember the old saying: Those who do not know history are apt to repeat it. Regrettably the author believes that there is no relevance in the history of Iraq.
I was enthusiastic that the book would delineate how Saddam Hussein has changed and why he can be trusted in the future? In other words, what should be done about Saddam's reign of terror and mass genocide he has performed on people both before and after the Gulf war? It is of somber concern to me that the Dove's do not exhibit compassion for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been tortured, raped and executed by Saddam's regime!
Everyone is aware that the most liberal/anti-war organizations have written some of the most damning reports on this regime, for example Max Van der Stoel's who was the UN's special rapportuer for human rights in Iraq, reported to the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was "of exceptionally grave character - so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War."

While the book has many weaknesses one of the worst sections (considering whom it was written by) is the assertion that a country does not have authority to bomb another country. The authors strangely back this up by using UNSCR 1411 and then seconded that with Article 51. While this is an interesting and novel way to say this war is illegal it would be easier to quote UN Charter Article 2 (paragraph 3 and 4) for this certainly has more weight than the authors argument. But even if you combine those two arguments together there appears to be some legally convincing reasons for war such as:

1925 and 1949 Geneva Convections (Treatment of prisoners, use of WMD, purposeful targeting of civilians)
Violation of the Vienna Conventions of diplomatic and consular relations
Violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty of 1993
Violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention
Violation of UNSCR 687

The above are 6 WELL KNOWN arguments for a LEGAL war; the book should have given at minimum a cursory attempt to discredit one of them!

To be fair the book did tackle one known argument for a legal war it is what is known as the legal principle of "anticipatory self-defense". It stated however that this has never been endorsed.

OH REALLY, I guess the authors hope that you have had you head in the sand for the last 41 years. Just a few examples:

1962 Cuban Missile Crisis
1981 Strike on Iraq's Osiraq Nuclear reactor
1982 Exclusion zone around Falkland Islands
1982 Sweden's use of force declaration against submarines found within 12 miles of its shores.
1998 strike on Afghanistan
1998 strike on Sudan
1999 Action in Kosovo

The most farcical part of the book is the claim that Saddam does not have the ability to build a nuclear weapon. The authors simply disregard 98% of the Untied Nations reports. They also overlook all of the illegal shipments of banned weapons, weapon parts, and logistical components that have been seized going into Iraq since 1991. The proof is extant; and well documented. In 1990 Saddam had a nuclear weapon sans the fizzle material. The vast preponderance of authorities agrees that Saddam will have nuclear capability in 3 - 5 years. But I guess these geniuses know more than anybody else.

The facts are clear that Saddam made more than $2 billion in 2001 smuggling oil out of the country. (Please refer to Petroleum Intelligence Weekly for more statistics) If you add up all the money he has made smuggling over the last 10 years, you know where he gets the money to build his WMD. Plus what little is left over he can add to his collection of billion dollar palatial estates. (Just imagine if he took this money and helped his citizens with it. Well, that would be the RIGHT thing to do wouldn't it)

I still feel uneasy about this war, but the more Anti-war books that I read with their simplistic argumentation, radical leftist interpretations of the facts, and general deception about the substance, I fell that I am becoming more hawkish every day.

For those yearning for an evenhanded treatment of facts about this multifaceted and difficult issue this is NOT your book. This book is a one-sided polemic that will only gratify those whom are dogmatically Anti-War.

Why two stars then? Not for content, but rather sympathy; for trying what might be impossible.

This book, as the other anti-war books, ignores the fact that Iraq has had twelve years to disarm. Clinton should of taken care of Iraq during his administration. There are claims that Iraq already has operatives in the US prepared to realease biloigical agents. Do we wait and see if they will strike. If I were on the street and I was approached by a potential attacker, I would most likely strike first to gain the upper hand instead of waiting to be attacked. America was attacked on 9/11 partly because of Iraq. American troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia (the Muslim Holy Land) because of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Usama bin Laden hates the presence of the "infidels" in Saudi Arabia, so, he declared the "Holy War" on America. I want peace as much as the next person, but I am not naive enough to think that all issues can be solved by diplomacy especially when that diplomacy has been going on for 12 years. It is good to read all sides all of an issue, but know when someone is speculating and when someone is basing his arguments on facts that are put together logically and not based on piecing together data to make it look like something it's not. Hussein is a known murderer. He took office by assasinating the former leader. His sons are murderers and they will take his place once he is gone. The US is right, though late, in taking action against Iraq.