Bad Words

WMDs.

What an awful acronym and even worse catch phrase: Weapons of Mass Destruction. The fact that these became common parlance is pretty disappointing.

It points to a different issue, however. Weapons, of any caliber are of interest, but only really big weapons are frightening. It is the worst of obsession with size.

If we remember back in the old days of the Cold War, we were obsessed with big weapons. For proof, recall the Cuban Missile Crisis. Two movements, arising simultaneously and collaboratively within the Cold War were: opposition to Communism and opposition to nuclear proliferation. Conservatives and Liberals took on these separate concerns with vigor and allowed each other a great deal of freedom because the people that were most troublesome to us were engaged in pursuing both.

After the Cold War, we became more interested in questions of arms [what a strange euphemism, since arms denote embracing—perhaps referring to weapons as fists might be more appropriate] due to the Iran/Contra scandal and the collapse of the Soviet Union and questions of its Nuclear stockpiles raised what we might call terror alerts around the world.

But we forgot about weapons in the 90’s. We did promise not to escalate with nuclear weapons, but that was (and is) a no-brainer. Where did our diligence go?

Then in 2003, we heard Bush argue that Iraq was stockpiling “WMDs”. Even economists got into the act: Alan Greenspan recently noted

“I personally believed that Saddam was behaving in a way that he probably very well had, almost certainly had, weapons of mass destruction. I was surprised, as most, that he didn't.”

But what is funny is this: why would we think he had weapons, when we are so sure about everything else?

In the late 90’s we bombed Iraq’s main weapon stores. We knew from the weapons inspectors that as of 1998, Iraq had no WMDs. Our intelligence proved that he had not obtained any of the subsequent years. Nobody watching Iraq thought that they had any weapons, nor was Iraq pursuing them. This becomes the source of The Big Lie with regard to Iraq. Knowledgeable people had information that differed from the president’s plan and he ignored them.

Most pernicious about the term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is that it removes us from responsibility and sets us above the fray. We think that Americans would never support “mass destruction”, despite our singular status with the atom bomb and the execution of a military campaign in Iraq that was initially dubbed “Shock and Awe”, which included mass destruction of Iraqi infrastructure including water and electricity. I said at the time that the name “Shock and Awe” sound like the prime tenants of a terrorist act. We think that Americans couldn’t use the types of weapons that could cause that devastation, nor would we. And there is the rub. WMDs were pushed into public consciousness as something separate from the act of destruction. It is the gun owner’s response to regulation: guns don’t kill people, people do. But the concern for the gun leads to a multitude of actions: one of which is the discharge of the gun in order to kill a person.

By separating the weapons themselves from the actors, we are able to justify to ourselves the wanton destruction of entire nations and peoples in pursuit of weapons. The administration was able to make weapons a justification for invasion: a ridiculous idea considering our intimate understanding of their weapons stores. In fact, the very basis for invading Iraq is no different than city police invading your township home to keep your rifle out of your own hands—which should confuse the Republican—do I support a person’s right to weapons or do I blindly support the military? Shoot! What a tough choice?

Alan Greenspan now argues that Iraq, for him, was always about oil: not ownership: but the flow of market forces in the region. Think about this in relation to what we’re doing and what was originally argued (WMDs). Where is the compassion? Where is the concern for others? Where is the love of neighbor and the appreciation of culture? Where is Christ in this (for the self-styled Christian-in-Chief)? Money and guns are not acceptable reasons for military action. Greenspan is trying to apply political cover for the administration’s war crimes in which he participated. As an advocate of war, suggesting the economic need for war, Greenspan is as guilty as Cheney and Bush of international and domestic war crimes. One hopes that their illusionment campaign can be shattered by 2009.