State forum to review US war policy issues

WASHINGTON, DC, June 14 – The State Department program analyzing and explaining global US engagements after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks into the heartland of America starts here tomorrow with seven senior editors and opinion writers from East Asia participating.

The two-week program is obviously a response to the widespread negative reactions that the US government’s post-9/11 moves, especially its invasion of Iraq, have elicited in Asia and elsewhere.

The program handout says in its summary: "The United States’ commitment to defend and promote democracy, peace and economic opportunity throughout the world while waging a vigorous war on terrorism at home and abroad has been questioned by some overseas, including influential opinion leaders.

"As a result, the positive image of the United States among some foreign publics has suffered.

"The reach of global television and the Internet into previously isolated and/or controlled societies has expanded, and public opinion – and the media’s ability to influence it – has become an increasingly important factor in the formulation and implementation of US foreign policy."

* * *

DAMAGE CONTROL: The program appears to this participant, at least at this point when it has not been sufficiently explained, as a move not only to rationalize policy, but also to repair damage to the US public image abroad.

We have not met the other participating journalists and have no idea what their orientations are. They are from Indonesia (1), Japan (1), Malaysia (1), Thailand (1) and China (2).

The program is on two levels. Aside from discussions with officials from the State department and other agencies, there will be interactions with private citizens, including American families who will welcome us into their hones for dinner and chat.

The involvement of citizens and volunteer groups to augment official efforts is standard in all US International Visitor programs. We experienced the same home hospitality element when we joined a similar one-month program years ago.

Even as we gather here, the media are peppered with reports of continued resistance of Iraqis to US occupation. The sporadic clashes since President George W. Bush declared last May 1 the end of the major battle and the capture of Baghdad, at least 44 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

There is, as can be expected, a crescendo in the questions being asked in America as to why around 140,000 American troops are still in that embattled country and, by families of the soldiers, when are the boys finally coming home from the war?

* * *

BASIC QUESTIONS: More disturbing questions lurk in our mind as we prepare for the sessions. As they are basic, they require answers.

Foremost in our mind in why President Bush apparently lied to the American people and to the world when he declared that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Saddam Hussien’s Iraq.

This is a serious matter as it also touches on the very character of the US president. Since the weapons supposedly poised against the US were used as the excuse for the invasion of Iraq, the President’s declaration must be substantiated.

The US is now in control of virtually every inch of ground in Iraq and therefore has no excuse for not finding those weapons – yet, two months after the announcement of American victory, Mr. Bush has not been able to produce one Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Unfortunately for him, even if he produced some WMDs now, they would be suspect since the usual cynics would say they could have been planted.

* * *

PATRIOTISM PREVAILS: Suddenly we remember then President Bill Clinton being impeached toward the end of his term for misconduct.

The average American, we imagine, may have been willing to gloss over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, especially because the economy was then that robust. But what most American may not be able to forgive was his lying about the affair.

With Mr. Bush apparently having lied, and continuing to insist on it, in his reckless allegation that Iraq kept Weapons of Mass Destruction, will the US public be as forgiving – especially with the economy faltering in some areas?

But as an outsider viewing US affairs third-hand through the colored glasses of media, we get the impression that Americans tend to rally around their government – and by extension around the Commander-in-Chief? when the country is at war.

It would be unpatriotic for an American to kick and cuss and assail government war policy and actions.

* * *

BALANCING ACT: Mr. Bush will have to do a delicate balancing act in continuing the war to prop up his public support rating while assuring Americans that the war will not claim too many lives and drain resources that should go to domestic essentials.

Mr. Bush is not alone as he catches the fallout of the big lie about the WMDs. His good friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain is himself now in serious trouble for foisting on the government and the British public the same lie about the WMDs.

In Manila, President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo is not in such jeopardy although she had unabashedly joined Mr. Bush’s "coalition of the willing" supporters of the US war.

She is lucky that Filipinos are generally pro-American. Also, her pro-US stance has been sort of validated by her recent US state visit from which she brought back a bulging balikbayan box filled with promised foreign aid and pledges of American investments.

Scratch a Filipino on the forehead and you will see, in four out of every five cases, an intending US immigrant.

In our area in Pampanga that thrived for decades under the shadow of sprawling Clark air base, the home of the US 13th Air Force, half of the households boast of having at least one family member in the States, legally or otherwise.

* * *

UNILATERAL ACT: Another question we have is on the correctness of one nation invading another sovereign nation halfway around the globe (the US had to secure transit and flyover rights from countries along the way to Baghdad).

What gave the US the right to cross internationally recognized boundaries to attack a nation already debilitated by a decade of embargo and which does not pose a direct and imminent threat to the great US of A?

A mandate from the UN Security Council would have covered the gaping hole, but Mr. Bush in his hurry bypassed the agency with only two – Great Britain and Spain – in tow. Of course, a few others (the Philippines included) succumbed later to the high-pressure campaign to round up more non-shooting allies.

* * *

CATCH-ALL TERM: To our simple mind, outside the aegis of the UN, the only credible excuses for the invasion were if there was evidence of an imminent attack or if the military action was in self-defense or in hot pursuit.

None of these situations was obtaining when Mr. Bush ordered the mobilization of forces in the Gulf and in Kuwait, and the launching of the massive bombardment of Iraq followed by a ground assault.

As far we know, Iraq was not poised to attack the US and was in fact disavowing any hostile intention. There was no Iraqi operation against the US that we know to justify any claim to self-defense.

As for hot pursuit, remember that no Iraqi was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and New York. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, one of the supposed allies of the US in the Middle East. (For that matter, none of them was from Afghanistan, where the posse organized by Mr. Bush went galloping.)

The idea of hot pursuit can be tweaked to the extreme by using the catch-all term "terrorism" in the context of what we came here to discuss We understand that it is now in official lexicon some sort of an expanded Pan American doctrine that nobody dare touch the American hemisphere.

* * *

PERSONAL NOTE: You can access previous Postscripts at our personal website www.manilamail.com. You can also research at the site all topics we had discussed in past columns. While we are abroad, please send e-mail to [email protected].