By Keiler Hook, YellowTimes.org

What has happened to the War on Terror? Fox News opens up its news reports with the words War on Terror blazoned across the screen but when the broadcast begins all one hears about is the planned war on Iraq. I cannot remember hearing in the month of August any talk about Afghanistan or Osama bin Laden. Surely, this is not because the war in Afghanistan has been successful or that the U.S. has captured Bin Ladin. The War on Terror has taken a backseat to the War on Saddam, especially on cable television.

However, the current members of the U.S.-led international coalition in Afghanistan, as well as European allies, and notably those in the Middle East, have expressed serious reservations about U.S. calls to expand the war against terrorism to Iraq. As much as President Bush and Fox News have tried to tie the two together the war on terror and the war on Iraq are not equivalent.

Moreover, some important Republicans do not back Bush on this road to perdition. Namely, legislators Dick Armey, outgoing House leader, Senators Chuck Hegel and Richard Luger; plus senior Republicans such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the former-President Bush's National Security Advisor Brian Scowcroft have expressed grave doubts about the President's Iraqi policy. "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr. Scow explained in the Wall Street Journal.

At the same time the Whitehouse remains bellicose, with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice telling British Broadcasting Company (BBC) recently, "that the outside world has a historic obligation to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or face inevitable global 'havoc' perpetrated by his regime." The administration appears to give no credence to any official opposition whether or not it's coming from its own party. Sadly, the cowardly Democrats have remained largely out of the discussion.

Richard Perle, leader of the group that most wants to invade Iraq, retorted that Brian Scowcroft's remarks were naive and that for President Bush to back out of a war with Iraq would produce a "collapse of confidence" in him. It looks to me that Bush has painted himself into a corner and can't get out of entering a war that no one, except a tight coterie of warmongers, wants. Senator Hegal said the CIA has no evidence that Iraq is an imminent threat and countered with the following statement: "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." The internal battle is heating up very publicly. Meanwhile, the war on terror remains a war without definition or clarity while the President readies for another conflict.

What if war is terror, Mr. Bush? You say the U.S. is fighting a war on terror but if the U.S. attacks Iraq then the US is fighting a war of terror. The United States is in a position to broker peace in the world. Instead we look like the neighborhood bully rallying for a fight with a small time thug. We are better than this.

Saddam Hussein is a big, blustering fool who has terrorized his own nation. When he gassed his own people in 1988 it was with the knowledge of the United States. Why is the United States finally addressing this at this late date? Iraq has not threatened any other country in ten years; why pick on it now? What is the rush? Secretary of State Colin Powell is in the midst of discussing a post-Saddam era with State Department officials. Hopefully, these discussions could lead to a postponement of military action by the United States and more diplomatic action by the international community.

If Hussein is breaking the sanctions that were put upon him by the United Nations (UN) then let the UN take care of it. General Musharref from Pakistan is as brutal to his own people as Hussein is and there is no doubt that Pakistan has weapons of mass destruction, yet we are not going to war with Pakistan. The U.S. contained the USSR for decades. There are lessons to be learned from the policies we followed during that era and have followed up to now - namely, they do work.

Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution said Bush seems to have made a decision to take on Saddam without thinking through the consequences. "He's been stuck with the decision ever since he made it," Daalder said. Alluding to what he called the Bush's "analytical emptiness" regarding Iraq, he said it is possible that "the most likely way in which Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction [against Americans] is if we attack them." Why put Hussein in the position to use these weapons?

Our country is looking more like the Soviet Union of the 1950's, attempting to expand hegemony by overpowering countries it finds offensive. Half the world is scared of us and, therefore, hates us. Is this how we want the world to view Americans? Is the U.S. fighting a war on terror or causing terror?

The United States, in attacking Iraq, would be fueling a situation in the undemocratic regimes that stretch from North Africa to Southeast Asia. The U.S. continues its fight against the al Qaeda; there is still the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians - a tremendously volatile situation that we are largely ignoring; and weapons of mass destruction are facing each other on the India Pakistani borders. In the middle of all this chaos the United States wants to attack a core Arab state. It seems abundantly clear that this action will ignite the whole region.

It is against international law and the U.S. Constitution to attack a country that has not provoked an attack. Author, Ron Jacobs writes: "No nation has the right to attack another nation, no matter what their excuse. This is a basic understanding that guides the world of international relations and is one of the fundamental mechanisms that allows the various nations to maintain their tenuous balances of power. When this understanding is ignored or flouted by a government, the balance between war and peace disappears and war rules the planet."

The administration seems to believe that once we invade Iraq, the Iraqi people would side with the opposition forces. But this is only a transparent attempt at another bump in the approval ratings looking toward the fall of 2002 and even further to 2004. Brian Foley, professor of law at Widener University in Delaware, writes, "The war will increase the danger of terrorism: Iraqis whose families will be uprooted or killed by U.S. bombs won't necessarily forgive the U.S., even if it removes their vicious leader. Litmus test for human emotion: How did Americans feel after being bombed on September 11? Expect similar reaction from Iraqis and others, especially in the Arab world, if they watch U.S. forces rout Iraqi troops and wreak 'collateral damage.' "

If there is an invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi's will support its president because their country was being invaded. Remember, the Russians backed the much-feared Stalin when their country was invaded.

Iraq has put out a friendly hand to its neighbors and even invited the U.S. Congress to visit. Our administration, Congress and the mainstream media dismissed this invitation out of hand. Where is role of diplomacy? Since when has might become right? We are behaving like the Imperialists of the 19th century, scaring countries with our might, something the Arab nations will be quick to point out.

"Only one conclusion is possible when you go there," writes Jan Oberg, Director of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research. "The Iraqi people deserve the world's sympathy, not our bombs. If you go there, you will hardly be able to advocate war. Not one international staff member or mission chief we met, most of whom have worked there for months and years, thought sanctions was an effective political tool or that an invasion would solve more problems than it would cause."

So what is the alternative? Containment, not war. The United States cannot make peace while delivering terror. War is terror: just ask the people of Iraq who have faced terror for years from the sanctions meant to punish their leader for staging war against his neighbor.

The firepower meant for Hussein will surely decimate the children of Iraq. They will be the victims of a war on Iraq along with the young people from the United States who are serving in the armed forces. These will be tragically needless losses. The world hopes for better from the United States. Mr. Bush can create a legacy of peace if he listens to the pleas of the international community.

[Keiler Hook, a journalist from the Deep South in the United States, writes pieces mostly concerning either the "War on Terror" or the "War on Drugs"; both subjects capturing her passion and her talent. Keiler is a woman, a mother, an activist, and a journalist.]

Keiler Hook encourages your comments: KeilerHook@comcast.net