I was angered by both Scott Simon's 2/22/03 interview with Daniel Schorr and Simon's subsequent monologue regarding the impending war in Iraq. In both pieces, they presented an uncritical parroting of the Bush administration and a dismissive caricature of the opposition to the impending war on Iraq. Schorr characterized France's opposition to the war as simply wanting to "stick a finger in Uncle Sam's eye." More offensive and disingenuous was Scott Simon's insinuation that those who are volunteering to be human shields to protect the people of the Iraq against the US-planned bombing campaign are dupes of Saddam Hussein. Why didn't NPR let those volunteers speak for themselves?

Scott Simon reiterated Tony Blair's justification for war--Saddam Hussein has killed over a half-a-million people. Simon failed to provide context. A vast majority of those murders occurred during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein was armed and supported by the Reagan/Bush Senior administrations. To provide more context, why doesn't NPR run a story comparing and contrasting the Iraqi and Turkish governments' treatment of the Kurds throughout the 1990s? During the 1990s, the US armed the Turkish army while they killed tens-of-thousands of Kurds and ethnically cleansed millions. Both Saddam and his backers need to be tried for war crimes.

Moreover, like other mainstream media outlets, it often appears that NPR has limited its role to being a megaphone for the powers that be, rather than an impartial investigator of truth. Any discussion of the impending war with Iraq should be prefaced by the fact that the Bush administration has provided no evidence that Iraq is an imminent threat. In fact, they have spouted numerous allegations that were subsequently proven false. Often, the propaganda has crossed the line into the farcical, such as when Powell and Blair passed off as "intelligence" a plagiarized, decade-old doctoral dissertation. Based on this record, it seems that NPR should treat statements made by the US and British governments with the same skepticism it would treat another government's propaganda.

To conclude, I will briefly outline the arguments against the war.

* First, the war and its aftermath will likely result in the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers. In addition, just like the last war, the resulting environmental catastrophe will scar Iraq for centuries.

* Second, it will be the start of an unprecedented American colonial adventure in the Middle East. American imperialism will be resisted. The predictable cycle of violence begetting violence will ensue. As a result, both US-sponsored and oppositional terrorism will increase. Future wars in Iran and Syria are likely.

* Third, there is a risk that the war will politically destabilize the region and a fanatical regime will take over a state such as Pakistan.

* Fourth, the doctrine of "pre-emptive war" will become de facto international law. The logical consequence is that violence rather than diplomacy will be the primary means for resolving international conflicts.

* Fifth, the US plans to rule the world by the threat of violence in the 21st century. These plans have been laid out in documents such as the White House's latest National Security Strategy of the United States and US Space Command's Vision for 2020. This strategy will spark a new nuclear arms race--nuclear weapons being the only deterrent to the power-hungry and fickle US. We should not forget that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were both former allies of the US.

* Sixth, the war will likely serve as cover for Israel to increase its ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine.

* Seventh, further militarization of US society will result in more social disaffection at home. The more resources the US dedicates to the military the less it spends on health, education, housing, sustainable energy, the arts, and other human needs at home.

* Eighth, as we have seen, to quell dissent at home the state will attempt to undermine civil and human rights.
We who oppose the war on Iraq are not advocates of Saddam Hussein. We are not naive. Our goal is to expand the realm of democracy, freedom, and real human security. We will not be deterred.

Yours truly,

John W. Lawrence
Staten Island, New York