War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq

Chomsky aids in clearing up the propaganda and lies around the corporate media and backs up all his opinions with facts and evidence. he is a genius. some cannot believe the stuff he documents is actutally true so they label him a liar. but if you investigate his cited evidence you see he (frighteningly) is speaking truth. get this book.

*War Plan Iraq* is a reasoned, non-jingoistic appeal for cool heads and out-of-the-box thinking when it comes to US relations with Iraq. Milan Rai provides a concise history of UNSCOM inspections and how those inspections eventually broke down. Rai's point is to argue that the breakdown isn't irreparable. Rai then goes on to argue explicitly against a military showdown with Iraq by claiming (1) that there's no established connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden, (2) that there's no evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, (3) that the consequences of war could be devastating to both the region and to international relations, (4) that the economic consequences of a war are dire, (5) that both popular and military opinion about a war are mixed, and (6) that Washington isn't so concerned with a regime change--that is, a change to democracy--as a leader change--that is, getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Consequently, overthrowing the current strongman will do nothing to improve the lot of the average Iraqi, despite Washington's rhetoric to the contrary.All in all, a persuasively argued book. I recommend it alongside Anthony Arnove's *Iraq Under Siege* and, for the other side's perspective, Kenneth Pollack's *The Threatening Storm.*

I fully agree with the excellent reviews previously posted by Will Podmore from the U.K. and Patrick Carkin from the U.S. It is true that the United States (and to a lesser extent Great Britain) have been seeking a pretext for invading Iraq for some time in order to gain control of its oil reserves. As this book makes clear, such an act of unprovoked aggression is in clear violation of the United Nations and would render much harm to our relationships with other countries around the world.Overall, the book does a great job of deconstructing much of the anti-Iraqi propaganda that has recently been heaped upon the American public. But while Saddam Hussein is certainly no saint, the fact remains that our onetime ally has been doing our dirty work for years. Indeed, Saddam's dictatorship has served to effectively check the growing influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Contrary to President Bush's rhetoric, this is the real reason why the U.S. purposely left him in power at the conclusion of the Gulf War. The author details how U.S. forces allowed Iraq's Republican Guard troops to escape U.S. General Schwartzkopf's trap in southern Iraq so that they could move to quell the Kurdish rebellion in the north, ensuring the survival of Saddam's regime.According to a recent article in Forbes magazine, it is estimated that Iraq's undiscovered oil reserves may equal Saudi Arabia's. Bush is obviously trying to promote an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection in order to drum up support for an invasion that will ultimately allow U.S. oil corporations to profitably exploit these reserves. The losers in such an endeavor are U.S. taxpayers and of course the long-suffering Iraqi people. Noam Chomsky has contributed an essay to this book reminding us that American foreign policy has often failed to live up to the country's democratic ideals: Guatemala, Vietnam and East Timor are just a few examples. The great irony in this latest episode is that the goal in Iraq is merely "regime change", not democracy; in other words, we want to replace Saddam with another strongman, not let the Iraqi people govern themselves. This should be reason alone to oppose the war, as if supporting another corporate oil war wasn't bad enough.In short, "War Plan Iraq" gives us many reasons why we should avoid this unnecessary war, and in so doing gives us much to reflect upon as U.S. citizens. Perhaps if we want a better world, we should focus not on Iraq but on changing the regime in Washington, D.C. Leadership dedicated to peace and democracy would make us proud; but Bush's war mongering and despotism shames us all. I can not recommend this timely, relevant and important book any more highly.

As a former US Army Intelligence Analyst, and as a long term lobbyist on this issue, I cannot recommend this book highly enough. The analysis of the US dominated policy toward Iraq is dead on accurate. On the inside flap of the book there are three quotes, the first being one from a member National Security Council in 1991: "Our goal is to remove Saddam Hussein, not his regime."This quote reveals the US policy not just toward Iraq, but is also useful in understanding what the US did in Afghanistan: The US government purposely and willfully destroyed attempts to extradite bin Laden -- just as it has destroyed all popularly supported methods to remove Saddam from power. As the book says so bluntly, it's about leadership change, not regime change in Iraq. As for Afghanistan, as Sen. Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it, "The worst outcome would be if bin Laden was extradited." About the only negative remark I can make about this book is that it's mostly from a British perspective and might not be the best choice for American readers. No matter, I urge everyone to read this book, buy it, give it to your friends, especially the ones who think that President Bush is doing the right thing. I have never recommended a book on Iraq this way. But this one is that good and more important than ever as we face a potential war in Iraq.

This is a most convincing and well-argued case for peace. Milan Rai deals brilliantly with the issue of the UN weapons inspections. He shows how the US government destroyed the UN?s weapons inspection agency Unscom. On 30 October 1998, the UN Security Council, led by the USA, refused to confirm that it would lift sanctions even after Unscom had verified that Iraq had disarmed. This breached Paragraph 22 of its own Resolution 687, and Iraq, temporarily, withdrew its cooperation with Unscom. A month later, it restored cooperation, but the US government had already decided to launch the Desert Fox bombing attack.The US and British governments are covering up the fact that the inspections succeeded. By 1992, Unscom had eliminated Iraq?s long-range missile programme. By 1995, the International Atomic Energy Authority had eliminated Iraq?s nuclear weapons programme. According to Richard Butler, the head of the Unscom team, Unscom was within a few weeks of completing its work when the US government pulled it out. Why didn?t the US government want the inspections to succeed? Because it didn?t want Iraq peacefully disarmed, it wanted Iraq defeated in war. Why? Because only by occupying Iraq can the US government get what it really wants - control of Iraq?s oil.The Bush government continues vehemently to oppose inspections. The Washington Post noted ?concern by Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power.? As Colin Powell said recently, if UN weapons inspectors returned to Iraq under existing agreements, the US ?would find ways to thwart that?. So Bush is determined to wreck the new agreements achieved on 1 October. He does not want inspections, because they would prevent war; he wants to prevent weapons inspections so that he can launch a war. Rai puts forward ten reasons for opposing the war: there is no evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; there is no link between Iraq and 11 September; war would not be about ?regime change? but about ?dictator change?; war could trigger a humanitarian disaster; war would endanger the Kurds; war would be illegal; Iraq?s neighbours fear Bush, not Saddam; US and British generals oppose the war; 58% of the British people oppose the war; war could trigger a world recession.One link between Al-Qa?ida and Iraq that the US government has proposed was an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 between Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader of the suicide hijackers, and the Iraqi intelligence officer, Ahmad al-Ani. This allegation got worldwide coverage. But, as the BBC reported on 1 May, ?investigations indicate that at the time of the alleged meeting with the Iraqi agent, Ahmed Chalil Ibrahim Samir Ani, in April 2001, he [Atta] was in Virginia Beach and Florida.? Time magazine reported on 13 May, ?the best hope for Iraqi ties to the attack ? a report that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligen