It’s Iraq, Stupid!

Alternet by Stephen Zunes, November 7, 2002
[source no longer available]
The country is still mired in recession. Polls consistently have shown that the Republicans’ positions on such basic policy issues as the environment and the economy are decidedly unpopular. The connection of top administration officials with scandal-plagued corporations provided ample opportunities for a populist message against corruption and in support of economic justice. Despite this, the Democrats became the first party out of office to lose one of the houses of Congress in an off-year election. It was the first time in a century that a Republican president saw his party gain seats in an off-year election and only the second time since 1934 that a sitting president’s party did not lose seats in Congress…

President Bush Fails to Make His Case

Alternet by Stephen Zunes, October 8, 2002
[source no longer available]
Given what is at stake, one would have thought that the administration would have made a stronger case for going to war than President George W. Bush did on Monday evening. The weakness of the administration’s position is apparent in its insistence of repeating stories of Iraqi atrocities from more than 10 to 20 years ago, such as its support for international terrorist groups like Abu Nidal and its use of chemical weapons. It was during this period when the United States was quietly supporting the Iraqi regime, covering up reports of its use of chemical weapons and even providing intelligence for Iraqi forces that used such weapons against Iranian troops. Though the 1980s marked the peak of Iraq’s support for terrorist groups, the U.S. government actually dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism because of its own ties to the Iraqi war effort. Two decades later, in its annual report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” the State Department presented no evidence of any current Iraqi support for active terrorist groups, only the granting of sanctuary to some aging leaders of dormant groups…

U.S.-Iraq: On the War Path

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes October 4, 2002 [source]
Key Points
* U.S. support for Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1980s contributed to Iraq’s emergence as a major regional military power.
* The U.S.-led Gulf War in 1991 forced the withdrawal of Iraqi occupation troops from Kuwait and led to an ongoing U.S. military presence in the region, including periodic air strikes against Iraq.
* War damage from 1991, combined with severe economic sanctions and periodic U.S. air strikes, precipitated Iraq’s severe humanitarian crisis.

After President’s Speech, Questions Remain Unanswered

By Erik Leaver, Stephen Zunes, October 1, 2002 [source]
As George Bush prepares to invade Iraq.
At the House International Relations Committee markup of H.J. Res. 114, U.S. Representative Sherrod Brown (D-OH) put forward an amendment that contained a series of questions he argued the administration must answer in order for Congress to fulfill its constitutional responsibility regarding a prospective war, and to gain the confidence of the American people. The address by President George W. Bush on Monday evening failed to provide answers to these critical questions…

United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq

Foreign Policy In Focus, October 1, 2002
by Stephen Zunes [source]
(Editor’s Note: In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 88 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration’s insistence it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the UN…)

The Case Against War

The Nation, September 30, 2002,  by Stephen Zunes [source]
Despite growing opposition, both at home and abroad, the Bush Administration appears to have begun its concerted final push to convince Congress, the American people and the world of the need to invade Iraq. Such an invasion would constitute an important precedent, being the first test of the new doctrine articulated by President Bush of “pre-emption,” which declares that the United States has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to American interests. At stake is not just the prospect of a devastating war but the very legitimacy of an international system…

Bush’s United Nations Speech Unconvincing

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes
September 1, 2002 [source]
The last time–and only time–the United States came before the United Nations to accuse a radical Third World government of threatening the security of the United States through weapons of mass destruction was in October 1962. In the face of a skeptical world and Cuban and Soviet denials, U.S. ambassador Adlai Stevenson presented dramatic photos clearly showing the construction of nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. While the resulting U.S. military blockade and brinksmanship was not universally supported, there was little question … the threat was real…

Seven Reasons to Oppose a U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Foreign Policy In Focus August 1, 2002, by Stephen Zunes [source]
The United States still appears determined to move forward with plans to engage in a large-scale military operation against Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. In the international community, however, serious questions are being raised regarding its legality, its justification, its political implications, and the costs of the war itself. Such an invasion would constitute an important precedent, being the first test of the new doctrine articulated by President George W. Bush of “preemption,” which declares that the U.S. has the right to invade sovereign countries and overthrow their governments if they are seen as hostile to U.S. interests…

Fallacies of U.S. Plans to Invade Iraq

Foreign Policy In Focus, June 1, 2002
by Stephen Zunes [source]
There is no evidence of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda
In the months following the September 11 terrorist attacks, there were leaks to the media about alleged evidence of a meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence officer and one of the hijackers of the doomed airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Subsequently, however, both the FBI and CIA have declared that no such meeting occurred. It is unlikely that the decidedly secular Baathist regime–which has savagely suppressed Islamists within Iraq–would be able to maintain close links with Bin Laden and his followers…

Why the U.S. Did Not Overthrow Saddam Hussein

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, November 1, 2001
[Source]  There has been a curious bout of revisionist history in recent weeks criticizing the U.S. decision not to “finish the job” during the 1991 Gulf War and overthrow the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein. With such a lopsided victory in the six-week military campaign, these right-wing critics argue the U.S. could have easily marched into the capital of Baghdad and ousted the dictator…

U.S. Policy Toward Political Islam

Alternet.org, September 12, 2001, by Stephen Zunes The perceived growth of radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and beyond has not only caused major political upheaval in the countries directly affected but has placed political Islam at the forefront of concerns voiced by U.S. policymakers. One unfortunate aspect of this newfound attention has been the way it has strengthened ugly stereotypes of Muslims already prevalent in the West. This occurs despite the existence of moderate Islamic segments and secular movements that are at least as influential as radicals in the political life of Islamic countries. Even though the vast majority of the world’s Muslims oppose terrorism, religious intolerance, and the oppression of women, these remain the most prevalent images of the Muslim faith throughout the Western world. Such popular misconceptions about Islam and Islamic movements—often exacerbated by the media, popular culture, and government officials—have made it particularly difficult to challenge U.S. policy.

The Failure of U.S. Policy Toward Iraq and Proposed Alternatives

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, Jue 1, 2001 [source]
Current U.S.-UN policy regarding Iraq has failed and has largely lost credibility. It is widely viewed internationally as reflecting U.S. (and, to a lesser degree, British) insistence on maintaining a punitive sanctions-based approach regardless of the humanitarian impact and it is increasingly regarded as having failed to bring about either democratic changes in Iraq or security for the Persian Gulf region. Numerous countries are challenging, if not directly violating, the sanctions regime, and international support has largely eroded. The U.S. is the driving force behind UN policy, since Washington wields effective veto power over any proposed changes…

Iraq: 10 Years After Gulf War

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, January 11, 2001
[Source] Key Points:
* The U.S. effectively coddled Hussein’s dictatorial regime during the 1980s with economic and military aid, likely emboldening the invasion of Kuwait.
* The 1991 Gulf War forced the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait and led to an ongoing U.S. military presence in the region.
* Certain provisions of the cease-fire agreement, severe economic sanctions and ongoing military operations, have limited Iraqi sovereignty and have created a severe humanitarian crisis…

The Gulf War: 8 Myths

Foreign Policy In Focus by Stephen Zunes, January 1, 2001
[Source] The United States-led war against Iraq commenced on January 16, 1991. On this the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War, the myths that justified the war continue to be widely circulated. It is important, particularly in the light of the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iraq and the devastating humanitarian impact of U.S.-led sanctions, to challenge these myths. To fail to do so will make it difficult to change U.S. policy and could even increase the possibility of another cataclysmic war in the future…