Waiting for war

If you’d rather watch a video of Monsters, Inc. or Laman than find out if George W. Bush will get US congressional backing for an attack on Iraq, you’re not alone. After the threat of 9/11 Part II passed last week, Americans are eager to move on to other things.

I was told that a Doonesbury cartoon in the US showed a pollster asking a woman if she thought America should go to war. Her reply: "Will it be on Channel 5? I only get Channel 5."

"Last week there was nothing being talked about but 9/11, but this week it’s a mix of Al-Qaeda and Iraq," an American journalist e-mailed me. "Given the way most Americans pay attention, I’m sure they think (Osama) bin Laden is Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law."

Surveys have reportedly shown that most Americans have no objection to a war but want any attack to be backed by the United Nations. Americans have also been spoiled by their recent military forays — mostly surgical air strikes that were quick, relatively low-cost and with minimal casualty count. Even the war in Afghanistan didn’t turn out to be another Vietnam. If Bush can guarantee to the American people that the war on Iraq will be just as brief and relatively painless, then he will get all the public support he wants.

* * *

Now if Bush could only explain why he wants to go to war.

There was a collective sigh of relief when the first anniversary of 9/11 passed without incident. On the other hand, some hawks in Washington are probably regretting that the terrorists did not give them a reason to attack Iraq. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive or preventive strike against terrorism has been a hard sell not just to the UN but also to many Americans.

Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein has made it harder for the US by announcing that he would allow the "unconditional" return of UN weapons inspectors to his country.

A backgrounder from the US Embassy, released yesterday, scoffed, "We’ve heard ‘unconditional’ before."

"Time after time, ‘without conditions’ has meant deception, delay, and disregard for the United Nations," the backgrounder declared, adding that Saddam’s regime has a "repeated pattern of accepting inspections ‘without conditions’ and then demanding conditions, often at gunpoint."

The backgrounder provides details to bolster this assessment.

Last week the British Embassy also sent me a copy of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s 9/11 commemoration speech, which contains the same points raised by Bush in pushing for military confrontation with Iraq. "I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and did nothing," Blair said.

* * *

Okay, so maybe no one wants to be blamed for failing to prevent another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11. There’s an ongoing US congressional investigation on security lapses that made 9/11 possible, and officials in Washington surely don’t want to be the subject of a similar inquiry in the future, especially when the terrorist threat seems to be graver. The way US officials are talking, they’re expecting something worse – something that will involve nuclear weapons.

But without proof, all this will just remain in the realm of suspicion. And suspicion has never been enough to justify zapping a regime, no matter how evil it may seem to Washington. Some people may even demand a precise US definition of evil. Is there such a big difference between the strongman in Pakistan and the one in Iraq? The US can’t be fighting for the democratic way of life here, since among its allies are repressive Arab regimes.

The Bush team is arguing that a nuke-capable Saddam could hold the entire Middle East – and thus the world’s oil supply – hostage. But others are also arguing that if the US wants a steady supply of crude oil, one way of doing it is to leave Iraq alone.

Already there are Americans voicing suspicions that Bush’s saber-rattling on Iraq is his version of Wag the Dog, to divert public attention until the US elections in November. If Saddam can stall until election day, he might be spared an American military attack for a year or two.

There are also speculations that a war is Bush’s way of giving the sagging US economy – or at least the US defense industry – a boost.

* * *

Filipinos in the Middle East don’t seem too worried about the prospect of war. Reports said even those in Iraq don’t want to leave, just as Filipinos in Israel refused to leave despite the Palestinian suicide bombings. The Pinoys in Israel said they still felt safer there than in the Philippines. Take that, Woman in Black!

Yesterday there was another bus bombing in Israel, this time in central Tel Aviv. I don’t think that would persuade Filipinos to leave that country either.

Our workers overseas have seen what has happened to the Filipinos deported from Sabah. The deportees are jobless, homeless, and planning to return ASAP to Malaysia. The rape victims? Except for the teenager, no one else has come forward with a complaint.

If war breaks out in Iraq, I bet the Filipinos there will even have an exciting time as "uzis" or kibitzers.

* * *

Where does our government stand? We’ve been getting confusing signals in the past days from Malacañang. Yesterday, meeting with visiting US Treasury Undersecretary John Taylor, President Arroyo reiterated the country’s commitment to the US war on terror. But she can’t afford to do a Tony Blair, so she’ll just go along with whatever the UN decides.

What if the US Congress authorizes military action before the UN resolution, and the UN votes against war? My guess is President Arroyo will consider the response of the Arab states. If even one Arab country gives some form of open assistance to the US, she could push through with her offer of opening Philippine air space and other facilities to US troops.

Right now President GMA – like all other world leaders except Blair – is waiting for the US to present evidence and a stronger case for war.