Apocalypse Now

Although the trauma of last Sept. 11 has faded into the background, Bush has not loosened his stranglehold on public discourse. With his sights set on Saddam, he would prefer not to deal with pesky questions about double standards or the murky precedent that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would set. Stifling dissent may be harder now than it was some months ago, when challenges to patriotism could gag even the biggest mouths. But then again, Iraq is much closer to Bush’s heart.

Enter the rhetoric of apocalypse. After 11 years of relative obscurity, Saddam is suddenly everywhere. Administration officials remind us over and over that Saddam is dangerous, evil and irrational, and that in dealings with his “outlaw regime,” as Bush calls it, we can predict nothing but that he will disobey. He is a “man who would use weapons of mass destruction at the drop of a hat, a man who would be willing to team up with terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction to threaten America and our allies,” Bush told us on Monday. And if he obtains the proper “fissile material,” Bush cautioned the UN on Sept. 12, Saddam may have the potential to do all that within a year.

Maybe Bush is on to something. Maybe we haven’t paid enough attention to the developing threat in Iraq. After all, Saddam is evil and dangerous and may, for all we know, be close to developing the most devastating of weapons. Bush’s rhetoric may exaggerate the Iraqi threat, but he may be right to insist that the U.S. and the world should do something about it.

In any case, the real mischief in Bush’s rhetoric has less to do with the accuracy of his analyses than with the way his rhetoric insulates them from criticism. He has reduced the debate over Iraq to a choice between only two alternatives: invade now or live with a new Cold War, one in which we face the constant threat of devastating attack.

As a result, Bush’s critics are pinned between two untenable options. Were Iraq to sponsor a massive attack down the road, Bush has duped them into believing that they would deserve the blame, merely because of their choice to oppose invasion today. They are asked to weigh the strength of their convictions against the possibility of the unthinkable. That is a choice few are anxious to make.

Bush’s fear mongering has obscured the fact that if we choose not to invade, the world community will have many more opportunities to avert the Iraqi threat. Saddam cannot obtain the materials and equipment he needs to develop nuclear weapons without cooperation from nations with more advanced weapons programs. Although our relationships with potential suppliers like India, Pakistan, China and Russia have certainly not improved under Bush, there is time to work cooperatively toward tighter weapons controls and inspections.

But even in the absence of such controls, diplomacy has proven effective so far in keeping those volatile nations from using their own weapons of mass destruction. Our experience with Saddam has shown that although may be evil, he is neither stupid nor irrational. He does not want to see his country obliterated by a retaliatory attack, and there is no reason to believe that he will support an attack on the U.S. unless backed into a corner. The proponents of an invasion, more than anyone else, threaten to do just that.

But Bush’s rhetoric has already cornered his critics in Congress, who remain paralyzed by anxiety and doubt. When Bush released a draft resolution on Saturday that would give him nearly boundless power to deal with Iraq as he sees fit, his so-called opponents in Congress have offered only the most feeble objections. The resolution would give Bush the power “to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force…to defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq.”

While many in congress joined Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in calling for specific language that places bounds on the military action allowed, only a few on the fringe dared to speak up against using military action at all. The rest have been reduced to rubber-stamping a policy that calls for assassination, first strike and defiance of international law.

The American public, meanwhile, hears only dissonant murmurs of dissent and is left confused and ill informed. Bush’s rhetorical tyranny jeopardizes our national security as much as the threats that give it shape. Only after we depose that rhetoric and reopen vigorous debate can we properly address the complex Iraqi threat—without the impetuous sacrifice of thousands of lives.

Blake Jennelle ’04 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.