A European plan to avert war in Iraq, as initially conceived, would have looked something like the following:

The nearly 150,000 US troops deployed in the Persian Gulf would stay in place to force Iraq to cooperate and be ready to invade if Baghdad breaches the tougher inspection system.

A special UN court would be established to oversee infringements of the new inspection system and human rights abuses.

The latest (as of February 16th) word from Jacques Chirac is that, "We have to give the inspectors time. And probably--and this is France's view--we have to reinforce their capacities, especially those of aerial surveillance," and, "[Chirac] added that the huge United States military deployment in the Persian Gulf region--now nearing 150,000 troops--had created the possibility of peaceful Iraqi disarmament."

In other words, the Europeans, are essentially pushing for a return to the old League of Nations "mandate" system for Iraq, with the US hammer ready to pound down should Iraq "get out of line."

Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in response to the incipient proposal, stressed the "need to solve the problem and the crisis diplomatically." Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to commit the war crime of unprovoked aggression upon another country, a war in which the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, land mines, depleted and/or non-depleted uranium weapons, and (presumably) cluster bombs? Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to again obliterate Iraqi civilian infrastructure (and even declined an invitation to participate in a recent conference in Geneva concerning the humanitarian consequences of war), in the full knowledge that in so doing it is expected to create a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude", which could in the short-term generate 500,000 casualties, three million refugees, and three million hungry? Keep dreaming!

Given that the United States has been steadily bombing Iraq since 1998, and that Special Operations units are already operating in Iraq, are any European leaders proposing Security Council resolutions ordering the United States to get its ass on home, and promising "serious consequences" should it fail to comply? Keep dreaming!

Similarly, prominent "actors, writers, and public figures" have drafted a statement opposing war on Iraq, while assuring the President that, "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament." They're against the war, they say, because it would "harm American interests." The World Wide Punks want to "win without war," too. A slightly nuanced version of the appeal, "Keep America Safe: Win Without War," promulgated by "a broad coalition of leaders of religious and civic organizations," seeks to "stop Iraqi militarism," and supports "rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament."

Many others, including well-known liberal smarty-pants Todd Gitlin, various members of Congress, and repentant former CIA analyst Bill Christison argue that "containment is working." That is, that in dealing with the Saddam menace, we need simply continue the present genocidal sanctions policy and almost daily bombing in the "no-fly zones"--and then the rest writes itself.

Gitlin, in a February 11th letter to the New York Times, opined that, "The alternative to full-blown war remains a combination of tough inspections (aided by limited force, if need be), no-fly zones, and intelligent sanctions--that is, containment." Was he proposing that these measures are needed to "disarm" the United States, in order to keep it from threatening its neighbors? Keep dreaming!

Granting that the job of the moment is clearly to prevent a US-led war, if we accept the Bush Administration's framing of the agenda, we've done a grave disservice to the Iraqi people and the World, and are tacitly endorsing the Administration's thoroughly contorted picture, in which "up is down" and "black is white." If possession of weapons of mass destruction and aiding and abetting terrorists is grounds for "regime change," then the United States, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, and China--all erstwhile allies in the vaunted "War on Terror"--had better get in line. And presuming that one's place in line is to be determined by the magnitude of the threat posed, then the United States will be heading up the line.

For, while it would surely be nice were Saddam Hussein to renounce his repressive ways, or fuck off entirely, this would do nothing to deter (or, if you like, "contain") the greatest threat to peace that the world has ever seen: the United States military. U.S. military spending dwarfs that of any other nation. In point of fact, the United States' military budget is greater than the next 19 biggest spenders combined--all of whom are allies. The U.S. spends 57.8 times more than the "Axis of Evil" nations combined, and 285 times more than Iraq. This doesn't even include the projected cost of either Gulf War II (which all by its lonesome runs roughshod over any other country's entire military budget) or the ongoing "War on Terror." It also doesn't include spending on nuclear weapons, or on past military adventures, which when thrown into the mix bring the grand total for Fiscal Year 2004 to the brink of $800 Billion.

Lest anybody think the war toys will only be fired off in the event of emergency, we've always got Madeleine Albright to keep us Walking Tall: Merry Maddy once asked Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

The United States maintains dozens of military bases in foreign countries worldwide, and is currently already at--or almost at--war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia, while also providing enormous amounts of taxpayer largesse to fund Israel's insanely criminal occupation of Palestine, and planned ethnic "cleansing" of its inhabitants. The United States has time and again mounted foreign military "liberations" and "destroyed villages in order to save them"--always to the detriment of the target country's people, and without having sought their consent; and is far and away the world's leader in committing and enabling acts of terrorsim, possessing and using weapons of mass destruction, and shipping armaments to all corners of the globe. Long the scourge of democracy, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11. Furthermore, recent US planning documents make it alarmingly clear that the United States intends nothing less than forcible world domination (to an even greater extent than currently exists, that is).

A Time Europe poll, boasting nearly 400,000 respondents to date, finds that 84.6% consider the United States the "greatest danger to world peace in 2003." The wonder is not that so many should think so, but that nearly 15% should think that it could possibly instead be either Iraq or North Korea. We know why (in addition to the tautology that only niggers could ever pose a threat to world peace) the European leadership is happy to take the Bush Administration line in the "crisis." despite its populations' fear of the US menace: it covets Iraqi oil contracts, and doesn't want to be frozen out by a unilateral U.S. occupation of Iraq. But we don't have to accept the Bush Administration line any more that the European people do.

The "win without war" and "containment is working" angles are counterproductive at best, despicable at worst, and strikingly dishonest in any case. They ought to be scrapped. In favor of what? Americans are duty-bound to take responsibility for urr government's actions, and, inasmuch as we profit from the fruits of empire, our own actions as well. This is not to say that the US is responsible for all the world's problems. But as American citizens we're responsible for addressing our country's contributions to the world's problems.

Rather than propagating the Bush Administration's Saddam Hysteria, the peace movement needs to be forthrightly proposing real solutions. To wit:

* All U.S. troops everywhere shall return home, and all foreign military bases shall be closed down. A worldwide US military presence is synonymous with imperialism, and is therefore unacceptable.

* The sanctions against Iraq and Cuba shall be called off, and substantial amounts of reparations shall be paid to Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Colombia, Iran, Okinawa, South Africa, Vietnam, Sudan, Guatemala, Korea, El Salvador, East Timor, Serbia, Panama, Cambodia, Chile, Vieques, Congo, Haiti, Laos, and other victims of US militarism (yes, there are many more). * US war criminals George Bush I, George Bush II, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Robert McNamara, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Schultz, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest (yes, there are many more) shall be "detained," tried, and thrown into the slammer.

* All weapons of mass destruction--not just the Third World's--shall be dismantled.

* Unilateralism in world affairs shall not be tolerated. The US will work within the established multilateral framework for solving the world's problems. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

* All arms shipments abroad shall immediately be halted. Again, if a menace to the world's peace and safety presents itself, the solution lies not in U.S. military dominance, but within the framework established by the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

* The US military budget shall be drastically slashed, and redirected toward domestic and international social programs: ending the AIDS crisis, feeding and securing sources of fresh water for the world's people, expanding literacy, developing sustainable sources of energy, and so on.

* The Third World debt shall be cancelled, and IMF and World Bank eliminated. Economic self-determination for all people shall carry the day.

That oughta keep us busy for awhile. Pie-in-the-sky? Sure. But at least it derives from an honest assessment of the problems facing humanity. Problems which have destroyed scores of millions of innocent lives, and are on the verge of destroying millions more. Problems which, if not addressed honestly, have set us well on the course to extinction--probably sooner than later. Possibly even before you have the opportunity to finish reading this sentence.

Citations for this article can be learned at http://feedthefish.org/blog/archives/000058.html.