By Jenny Bartlett (WAND of Northern Indiana)
"Top
General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into Surrender,"
headlined the New York Times this week.
This was the second and and more explicit
announcement of the Pentagon's latest product.
It’s super-sized and extreme -- it’s the
war plan for Iraq. And, now that they've
told us, we can't ever say that we didn't
know. They spelled it out clearly for us
this week. Is anybody paying attention?
They call it "shock and awe. " Sounds like
a way cool video game, doesn't it? And they
tell us it will be "much, much different"
from the 43-day Gulf War I. "There will
not be a safe place in Baghdad," a Pentagon
official told CBS News. "The sheer size
of this has never been seen before, never
been contemplated before."
They plan to drop 3,000 bombs and missiles
on the people of Iraq in the first 48 hours
of the war. That's more than one bomb per
minute for 48 solid hours. Think "3,000
World Trade Center attacks" in a country
the size of California. It's the cold-blooded
killing of thousands of people who have
done nothing to us. Saddam Hussein will
be in a safe haven out of harm's way, just
as Mr. Bush will be sitting in his "war
room" watching it all on a video screen.
But the blood of these people will be on
our hands, because our leaders told us what
they planned to do. And our tax dollars
bought the technology to deliver Armageddon
to Iraq, raining fire and exploding metal
on men, women and children just like us.
And we will be sickened to see, later on,
what was done in our name. What we rightly
call atrocities -- the thousands blown to
bits, incinerated in the Bush War, and those
left behind to mourn their lost families
and the devastation of their homeland. It
is doubtful that they will have much love
for their American "liberators" or for the
Judeo-Christian faith our leaders so loudly
proclaim. The Muslim world will hate us
for this for generations, and rightly so.
One might well ask just what monstrous acts
of aggression warrant this unprecedented
reprisal. What has Iraq done to us to provoke
a retribution so harsh, so severe? What
has transpired to cause the United States
to break ranks with the civilized nations
of the world and wreak such devastation
on a country that poses no immediate threat,
that has been weakened by war and 12 years
of sanctions? There is no satisfactory answer
to these questions. The president offers
a shifting litany of “maybes” and “mights”
and shadowy “intelligence” that tells us
Saddam is a mortal threat.
The hypocrisy of it is stunning President
Bush will defy the United Nations, going
to war to punish Saddam Hussein for defying
the United Nations! He will override the
expressed will of the American people and
most of the rest of the world to "bring
democracy" to the Middle East. He will use
weapons of mass destruction on innocent
Iraqis to punish Saddam for trying to get
weapons of mass destruction. He will launch
full-scale war on an Iraq that doesn’t have
nukes while ignoring the very real threat
from North Korea’s aggressive nuclear weapons
program.
With our tax dollars. And with our consent,
because we've been forewarned. We can’t
tell our children and our grandchildren
that we didn’t know what they were going
to do. The generals clearly spelled it out
for us. When the Pentagon floats their "shock
and awe" plan in the news media, our silence
is taken for consent.
We must meet their “shock and awe” plans,
not with silence, but with a tidal wave
of moral outrage. We cannot be silent while
they do this in our name. True patriots,
conservatives and liberals alike, must stand
up, speak out, march and petition. Our leaders
have lost their way. We must remind them
that America stands for decency, fairness,
democracy, justice and peace. Let’s pray
it’s not too late.
South
Bend Tribune
December 12, 2002
Cost of waging war too high
MICHIANA POINT OF VIEW
By KAREN JACOB
A National Republican Committee negative
television commercial hit the air in October
and boldly declared that WAND, Women's Action
for New Directions, was a "radical group
that opposed the war on terror."
Then-candidate Chris Chocola said in defense
of the commercial that "...the allegations
accurately reflect the record of WAND" and
that "They (WAND) oppose the war on terror
in Afghanistan. That sounds pretty radical
to me." (The "record" he was referring to
stated that WAND supports multi-national
military action to capture terrorists and
that we oppose wide-range weapon deployment
that could kill or injure innocent civilians.)
OK! Uncle! (...or Aunt?) We
are radical, if being radical means: "to
empower women to act politically to reduce
militarism and violence and to redirect
excessive military spending toward unmet
human and environmental needs."
As president of the local chapter of WAND
I am dedicated to carrying out our above
stated mission. I have faith that, armed
with the facts, rational people will come
to an understanding that our country's costly
reliance on militarism is undermining our
democracy, and our economy, so radically
that it diminishes the well being of American
families and children. Read on to see if
you are radical, too.
On Sept. 20, President Bush released his
National Security Strategy. His strategy
is regrettably an alarming declaration of
U.S. power over the rest of the world, including
unchallenged military supremacy and freedom
to strike at will with unilateral, pre-emptive
military action. It declares that the strategies
of containment and deterrence are all but
dead.
The Bush national security strategy lays
bare the reality that a U.S. war on Iraq
(which he is unsuccessfully trying to link
to the war on terrorism), is about this
administration's aspirations to global dominance.
Not only does this have enormous moral and
ethical implications, it will also devastate
our already deteriorating economy.
The Congressional Budget Office provided
Congress with a new study on Sept. 30 of
the projected costs of a U.S. war on Iraq:
$43 billion. The study did not attempt to
estimate costs of rebuilding Iraq. Lawrence
Lindsey, the president's chief economic
policy adviser, said in a Wall Street Journal
article that the cost of war with Iraq could
be $100 billion to $200 billion. He dismissed
the economic consequences, saying that the
price tag for war would not seriously affect
interest rates or add much to the $3.6 trillion
federal debt, and amounted to "nothing"
in terms of its impact on the economy.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill echoed
Lindsey saying, "Whatever it is that's finally
decided to be done, we will succeed and
we can afford it."
We can afford it?
After four years of surpluses, the federal
budget ran a $159 billion deficit for the
fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. Deficit
projections for next year range from $109
billion (White House Office of Management
and Budget) to around $200 billion (the
Bond Market Association's Treasury Borrowing
Advisory Committee).
We can afford it?
President Bush is demanding tight budget
constraints on non-defense discretionary
spending, which is forcing cuts in human
needs programs, including the education
programs that were central to his own Leave
No Child Behind initiative.
Right here in Goshen, the accredited daycare
Walnut Hill Early Childhood Center is a
victim of this administration's ambitions
for global dominance. Due to a deep cut
in Step Ahead funding, Walnut Hill is facing
a $67,000 cut in next year's budget as well
as the loss of an additional $17,000 to
its annual budget with the ending of the
Title XX program. Carol McCory, Walnut Hill's
executive director, asked recently, "Do
we believe the statistics that tell us children's
level of trust and their belief about who
they are in this world are established by
age 5? If that is true, the work of Walnut
Hill is not only vital, it is imperative...
Where will these children go if Walnut Hill
cannot serve them?"
We can afford it?
The National Governors Association said
in July that 45 states have reported revenue
shortfalls over the last year totaling $50
billion. Indiana has a $1.2 billion budget
gap this fiscal year (National Priorities
Project, Inc.). Last May, in an effort to
reduce Indiana's budget deficit, Gov. Frank
O'Bannon announced plans to cut $203 million
from state programs, mostly from social
services (New York Times, May 31).
We can afford it?
No, we cannot afford a U.S. war on Iraq.
We cannot afford the financial cost and,
more importantly, we cannot afford the loss
of human lives -- American or Iraqi. We
certainly cannot afford a further increase
in the already exorbitant Pentagon budget
-- almost $400 billion for fiscal year 2003.
As women who are the primary caretakers
of this country, and know all too well the
painful trade-offs that result from too
little money and too many needs, let us
be clear:
The costs of Bush's war are simply too high.
Radically too high.
Karen
Jacob lives in Bristol. She is president
of WAND of Northern Indiana. Jacob asks
that people seeking more information about
WAND call 574-825-4654.
South
Bend Tribune
October 31, 2002
War concerns don't make her a radical
Michiana Point of View
By JULIA KING
Radical? My first instinct was to laugh.
A National Republican Committee commercial
had actually accused us of being a "radical
group that opposes the war on terror."
I had a flashback to one of our recent gatherings
where mostly gray-haired women sat in a
cozy living room and drank coffee, tea and
ate (I kid you not) scones. In between sips
and bites and friendly conversation, we
wrote letters to our senators and to our
congressmen stating our concerns about invading
Iraq. We surely would have made any decent
high school civics teacher beam.
It was Wednesday night when I got a phone
call from the Northern Indiana chapter president
of WAND (Women's Action for New Directions)
asking if I would be willing to go on camera
at WNDU Channel 16 to, well... defend our
honor.
"Will
you do it?" The chapter president prodded.
I picked up a WAND flyer that was lying
on my kitchen counter and read the familiar
mission statement: "WAND empowers women
to act politically to reduce militarism
and violence and to redirect excessive military
spending toward unmet human and environmental
needs."
"How
could I NOT do it?" I said. WAND encourages
women to engage in the democratic process
and to work toward meeting human and environmental
needs. Reasonable goals, yes? And since
our own mission statement says that we want
less violence, it's simply illogical to
suggest that we would be even remotely sympathetic
to terrorism. So I went to WNDU. But unfortunately,
a snippet on television news doesn't allow
for a lengthy exploration of anything, so
I left the station with a great deal unsaid.
Here's what I would have added: There are
really only two explanations for the advertisement.
Either the Republican National Committee
actually believes WAND to be radical, or
they simply want voters to believe it. Considering
the nature of WAND's activities, frankly,
the latter seems more likely.
But let's be charitable and imagine for
a moment that they do, indeed, believe what
they say. Now if that's the case, I'm no
longer laughing.
To start with, there is something about
labeling politically-active women "radical"
that gets under my skin. It calls to mind
a long-ago era that I -- and most other
women -- would rather not revisit. One can't
help think that a group of men gathering
for letter-writing campaigns and to discuss
domestic and world affairs would be unlikely
to attract similar suspicions.
But my own female sensitivities aside, American
opposition to a war with Iraq (especially
the kind of unilateral, pre-emptive war
that Bush's recent resolution allows for)
is running at about 60 percent, according
to a New York Times poll released earlier
this month. So if WAND's position against
invading Iraq truly does make us "radical,"
at least we're in good company.
But what's most troubling is that in these
tragic, dangerous, divided times, a major
political party attacked an organization
working to REDUCE violence. While groups
like ours try to convince weary, frustrated
Americans that engaging in the democratic
process is still the best (indeed, maybe
the only) way to navigate change, the RNC
maligns our use of the very system they
seek to control.
I'm frightened for a world, or a nation,
where citizens who voice their opinions
in the long-held tradition of democracy
are suddenly labeled "radical" by those
who would disagree with them. WAND supports
our government in bringing to justice those
responsible for the events of Sept. 11;
to suggest otherwise is pure fiction. Yet
patriots of all political persuasions, including
many in WAND's ranks, have grappled not
only with the morality of launching war
in the Middle East, but with the strategic
wisdom of such a plan.
If there are those who believe that the
United States of America should unilaterally
and preemptively attack Iraq -- against
international precedent, and against the
will of the majority of our own population
-- then it's their responsibility to explain
their rationale. But instead of doing that
the RNC has chosen to disparage those who,
in good conscience, distrust a simplistic,
militaristic response to an intrinsically
complex situation.
The people of northern Indiana -- and the
rest of our nation -- deserve better.
Julia King is a Goshen resident.
The
Boston Globe
October 8, 2002
"A
costly war would hurt Bay State"
As members of Women's Action for New Directions
and the Women's Legislators' Lobby, we urge
our Congressional delegation to oppose any
resolution concerning Iraq that does not
require arms inspections and all other possible
diplomatic solutions. We hope that Congress
will give only limited authority to the
president to wage war on Iraq. We cannot
sacrifice common sense in order to be thought
of as patriotic.
Our country is already in deficit spending
and we, as members of the Massachusetts
Legislature, cannot support an unlimited
commitment to war and occupation without
a similar commitment to spending for security
at home: Medicare, Medicaid, transportation,
the environment.
The current administration in Washington
has already reduced federal expenditures
in all of these areas to the detriment of
our constituents.
The National Priorities Project has projected
that if the U.S. bears the total cost of
a $100 billion war against Iraq (not the
total cost, but the estimated cost to taxpayers),
Massachusetts alone will bear $2.5 billion
of the burden. This does not include the
cost of occupation.
Our state cannot continue to fill the holes
left by the federal government. The cost
of this war must be part of the national
debate.
Rep. Ellen Story
Amherst
Rep. Carol Donovan
Woburn
This
letter was signed by three other state representatives.
Salem
Evening News
Salem, MA
(Published June 27, 2002)
I am writing to support the opinions of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the
potential of war with Iraq. According to
them, such a war might provoke just the
disaster it would try to avert. The President
stated that he would pursue "all options"
to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons
of mass destruction, but surely such a pre-emptive
strike runs the risk of having him do just
that. Further, the US military top brass
say that Hussein is fully capable of using
biologcal and chemical weapons against our
troops, and even non-military at home. If
the President's concern with homeland security
is real, perhaps he should listen to his
generals, even if he doesn't like the message.
Jane M. Baker
181 North Street
Salem MA 01970
(978) 741-3530
(Jane
Baker is a member of North Shore WAND.)
Letter
from Doloris Cogan
WAND of Northern Indiana
My impression is that today's American mothers
and fathers -- whites and blacks (and all
others) alike -- are not raising their sons
and daughters to become cannon fodder. From
what happened in Vietnam and Korea, they
know military "solutions" do not always
work. President Bush is underestimating
the hue and cry that will be raised if he
persists in going it alone in Iraq.
He is also underestimating the power of
e-mail and the Internet. The 40- and 50-year-old
parents may be silent, but they are not
uninformed. They are the hippies and the
veterans of the '60s -- and they will rise
up again, this time together. They know
war against Iraq will not only be bloody,
with tens of thousands of deaths, but endless
because it will inflame the Muslims in the
surrounding countries. The Muslims will
attack Isreal and then the U.S. Despite
our homeland security, there will be suicide
bombers in our own cities. Are we heading
toward a nuclear Armageddon? Brought on
by ourselves?
As the mother of some of those intellilgent
baby-boomers, I am equally concerned about
the civilians -- the innocent, helpless
men, women and children in Iraq -- who will
be killed by our bombs dropped by pilots
30,000 feet up, unable to see the havoc
wreaked below. Have we no mercy on the innocent?
There are alternatives. David Cortright,
president of the Fourth Freedom Forum, and
others will be speaking against going to
war against Iraq before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. Those of us who are
ordinary citizens must make the case clear
to our senators before it is too late. President
Bush professes to listen, but he does not
hear. Unless the chorus gets louder, he
will never hear.
Doloris Cogan, Member
WAND of Northern Indiana
