Dr. Jamal Nassar: Reflections on Iraq

Dr. Nassar is the Department Chair at Illinois State University of the Department of Politics and Government. He is the author of numerous books relating to U.S. foreign policy. He lectures on the nature of U.S. foreign policy, specifically in relation to U.S. involvement in Middle-Eastern politics.

1) Anthony DiMaggio- What do you think are the Bush Administration's main reasons for wanting war with Iraq? Does it have anything to do with oil?

Jamal Nassar- Of course it has to do with control over oil resources, but it is also a lot more than that. The first Bush Administration declared a new world order more than a decade ago. Now the second Bush Administration, with much of the same people, is trying to implement it. It is an order based on Empire. The American Empire plans to dominate the resources and trade on a global scale. Once Iraq becomes a U.S.-dominated area, Iran will be fully surrounded with U.S. military bases on all fronts. That is when we will begin to hear about Iran's support of terrorism and plans to develop nuclear weapons. The stage will then be set for a war on Iran. The war on Iraq does also work to divert attention away from the failure to arrest Bin Laden and his elk.

2) AD- What do you think the main reasons were for the first Gulf War? Are any of the pretexts used in that war or the new war permissible under international or national law?

JN- The first Gulf war aimed at much similar objectives: to weaken Iraq, then the most prosperous Arab country, in order to eventually defeat it. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait set the stage for it and now, after more that a decade of sanctions, Iraq is weak enough to take it over and create a market economy there with the oil dominated by our corporations. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait did provide the U.S. with the legal pretext to attack. The recent plans are not justifiable under international law with the exception of the Security Council resolutions. But since when does the U.S. care about implementing Security Council resolutions? Why not implement the 72 Security Council resolutions relating to Israel's occupation of Arab lands? This selectivity in applying international law and Security Council resolutions has cost the United States dearly. I believe that it will cost more in the future. This country cannot continue to be selective and at the same time expect people around the world to respect it.

3) AD- Could you talk about the effects this new war will have on the people of Iraq? It seems there is this trend to treat Iraq as monolithic, devoid of any human context. By focusing exclusively on Saddam Hussein, what are Americans missing?

JN- Psychological war is part and parcel of war. The constant reference to Saddam is intentional and aims at demonizing the other. Saddam Hussein is an easy target because of his cruel history. The suffering of the Iraqi people does not serve the objectives of the empire. Therefore, why highlight it? In the process, the people of the United States are missing the real reasons for the war and are kept in the dark about the father and mother in Iraq trying to feed and shelter their children just like any American family does. Once you take away the humanity of the other, it becomes easier to inflict harm on him.

4) AD- Do you think that, in the minds of members of the Bush Administration there is a genuine concern that Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction? It seems obvious that Rumsfeld and Bush are blatantly lying about Saddam having nukes because they would not be so quick to invade Iraq if Saddam had nuclear strike capabilities. Former Chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter claims that the Bush Administration knows very well that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, but has used this false pretext to invade Iraq. Do you think that members of the Bush Administration really believe Saddam and his supposed weapons of mass destruction are a threat, or is this just more propaganda to fuel the war machine?

JN- I do not know what Iraq has or does not have. All I know is that we have such weapons as many of our friends do. Who are we to tell others they should not have them? Those who say that Saddam may use them need to remember that our country was the only state in the history of humanity to use nuclear weapons. I suggest that we work on banning all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons all over the world. No country on earth should need such devastating weapons, including our own.

5) AD- The American corporate media tends to present a slanted picture of the value of human life. When Americans are killed, it is called murder, when anyone else is killed it is "collateral damage." this dehumanization and propaganda could never be so effective if it was not promulgated throughout out our schools, which have historically been necessary in the indoctrination process. Complacent teachers are necessary in producing complacent students, who will move into the world supporting war with infantile obedience and an unwavering commitment to what is called "patriotism." By leaving out the human consequences of our actions in world conflicts, complacent teachers help ensure that Americans will never learn from their mistakes, as the last six months have proven. Could you add anything about the use of propaganda, half-truths, and censorship in our schools and media and how it relates to war (specifically Iraq)?

JN- As I said earlier, psychological warfare is part of war. The average American needs to be able to question in order to decipher the difference. People are people regardless of their accident of birth. When they are killed, the impact is the same. It does not make a difference if the bomb is dropped by a dictator, or by a democratically elected official.

Our educational system has to take responsibility in educating our young generation to question. Our educational system was started more than two hundred years ago with an objective of Americanizing an immigrant population. We still do that. It is time for us to transform the educational system in order to internationalize what is now an overly parochial population.

6) AD- If we are interested in supporting a lawful, democratic environment throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world, what would be the best way to handle the problem of weapons of mass destruction?

JN- I would suggest a global ban on all such weapons, including our own.

7) AD- If Saddam is a murderous tyrant does that fact alone give us the right to invade Iraq? From your point of view what are the flaws in this type of logic or illogic as it might be renamed?

JN- Our world is full of tyrants. International law does not prevent them nor does it allow other countries to declare war just because they do not approve of the policies of such leaders. Tyranny is best fought with justice not war. We need to set the example of a fair and just global leader and then lend a helping hand to all those fighting tyranny and oppression all over the world.