Posted on 11-8-2002

Fending Off the Threat of Peace
by Norman Solomon

To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary. Elected
officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with reporters
and pundits.

This is no time for the U.S. government to risk taking "yes" for an answer
from Iraq. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration
has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground. In early
August, a State Department undersecretary swung a heavy mallet. "Let there
be no mistake," said John Bolton. "While we also insist on the
reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time
insists on regime change in Baghdad -- and that policy will not be altered,
whether inspectors go in or not."

A sinister cloud briefly fell over the sunny skies for war. The U.S.
Congress got a public invitation. A letter from a top Iraqi official "said
congressional visitors and weapons experts of their choice could visit any
site in Iraq alleged to be used for development of chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons," USA Today reported. Summing up the diplomatic overture,
the front page of the New York Times informed readers that the letter "was
apparently trying to pit legislators against the Bush administration" (a
pithy phrase helping to quash a dastardly peace initiative). Later on, the
article noted that "the letter said members of Congress could bring all the
arms experts they wanted and should plan to stay three weeks."

There may have been a moment of panic in Washington. On the face of it, the
Aug. 5 invitation was unequivocally stating that members of the Senate and
House -- plus some of the best and most experienced weapons inspectors in
the world -- could go to Iraq and engage in a thorough inspection process.
That's similar to what the White House has been demanding of Iraq for many
years. The news had ominous potential. It could derail the war train
gaining so much momentum this summer. But U.S. media coverage matched the
bipartisan refusal by leaders in Congress to do anything but scorn the
offer. Even before describing the invitation from Iraq's government, the
first words of the USA Today news story on Aug. 6 called it "the latest
Iraqi bid to complicate U.S. invasion plans." That's some reporting! When
our most powerful politicians are hell-bent on starting a war, complete
with human misery and death of unfathomable proportions, then the last
thing they want is complications before the bloodshed gets underway.

Why should anyone in Washington try to defuse this crisis when we have such
a clear opportunity to light such an enormous fuse in the Middle East? Oh
sure, here at home, there are always some people eager to unleash the dogs
of peace. Not content to pray, they actually believe: Blessed be the
peacemakers. They don't defer to the machinery of war that grinds human
beings as if they were mere sausage. They don't make peace with how
determined the Executive Branch must be -- and how sheepish and even
cowardly the members
of Congress must be -- so that the bombs can fall in all their glory.

One of the people who's trying to impede the war drive is Scott Ritter, a
former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in Iraq. "To date," Ritter
says, "the Bush administration has been unable -- or unwilling -- to back
up its rhetoric concerning the Iraqi threat with any substantive facts." In
Britain, the press is failing to welcome the next war. On Aug. 4 in the
Observer, foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont wrote: "The question now
appears to be not whether there will be a war, but when. The answer is that
in war, as other matters, timing is all. For President George W. Bush that
timing will be dictated by the demands of a domestic political agenda." A
news story in the July 30 edition of the Financial Times began this way:
"Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq from
1991-97, has accused the U.S. and other Security Council members of
manipulating the U.N. inspections teams for their own political ends. The
revelation by one of the most respected Swedish diplomats is certain to
strengthen Iraq's argument against allowing U.N. inspectors back into the
country."

Such reporting, if widely pursued on this side of the Atlantic, could
seriously undermine the war planners. But don't worry. The threat of peace
is up against good ol' professional news judgment here in the USA.


Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media." His
syndicated column focuses on media.