Why Have We Become Willing Accomplices to Bush's War?

George Beres (Aug. 18, 2004):

[The writer lives in Eugene, Ore, and is a baptized Greek Orthodox Christian. His current research is on whistleblowers in government, and the missed opportunity John McNaughton had to be one.]

When I see reference to Peoria in a national news magazine, it usually relates to the entertainment business and names such as Fibber McGee & Molly and Richard Pryor. So I was startled to see Peoria among the communities featured in the TIME Magazine cover story (8-16) on "Al-Qaeda in America."

Listed was the name of a Peoria resident, Ali S.K. Al-Marri, who had nothing to do with entertainment, but possibly something related to the terrorist threat. A student from Qatari, he was arrested at his Peoria home in 2001 on suspicion of being a hidden Al-Qaeda agent. Since 1993, he has been in a military jail on charges of being "an enemy combatant."

His name resonates with me because of the exotic Middle Eastern names I remember among my fellow congregants years ago at Peoria's All Saints Greek Orthodox Church. Back then, issues were more benign. Members of Middle Eastern heritage were, as I'm confident they are today, caring and good members of the church, as well as the community.

Still, the arrest of Ali, who likely never stepped foot in the church, has to be discomforting to church members. They may feel ethnic identity alone probably has them on the "close scrutiny" list of government officials with the mandate to guard against "terrorism."

Therein lies the quandry. If the dangers of terrorism are as real as we are warned, our nation's ability to challenge them is terribly weakened by shedding blood and spending billions on an invasion of Iraq. Resources needed to protect against the terrorist threat are viewed by many as being squandered without reason in Iraq, which has served as a major distraction from the task at hand.

That view might not carry if the Bush administration had been able to substantiate its early claims of Iraqi complicity with Bin Laden in the 9-11 tragedy of the airliners. But intense scrutiny-- often long delayed-- has demonstrated the following justifications for attacking Iraq had no merit:

• Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq - None found by inspectors or by invading troops, with any yet to be "uncovered" subject to suspicion of having been planted after-the-fact.
• Nigerian atomic fuels - Discredited by investigation.
• Intelligence linked to Iraq - Now acknowledged to have been incorrect, or, worse, having been colored by the White House to falsely seem to incriminate Iraq.

Lesser explanations for the unnecessary action have included:

• Saddam Hussein's vow to assassinate the father of the man now in the White House.
• Hussein's identity as a dictator who abused and murdered his own citizens.
• A born-again experience for the younger Bush which has caused him to share with extreme fundamentalists among Christians the idea of carrying a Christian military banner against Muslim terrorists.

The first of these explanations seems unlikely, especially since the son said he does not consult his earthly father, the former president, but instead seeks guidance from a higher father, in what he views as heaven.

Hussein's dictatorial identity is correct. But it becomes a shallow claim when one recognizes he once was an ally whom we armed for war against his neighbors. Pragmatists rightly ask: is it the duty of the United States to depose all the many dictators in the world, many of whom have been propped up by the U.S.?

It is hard to assess Bush's inner feelings about spiritual rebirth. What is apparent, however, is he has sought a stronger alliance with Christian fundamentalists, which raises a serous but unanswered question: does he see himself as their instrument for bringing about the Armageddon their scriptures say must come if there is to be a "second coming?"

These questions aren't likely to be answered during the countercharges and confusion of a political campaign that grows hotter every day. My concerns about what the American public does not know because it is hidden from them are fueled by what my recent research shows me about the role of a significant area man-- John McNaughton-- in the illegal escalation of the war in Vietnam.

I worked with McNaughton during his brief time in the 1950s as managing editor of the Pekin Times, published by his father. Years later, I learned from Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, that John had been No. 2 man to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in 1964. That was the year a Democratic administration used the Gulf of Tonkin lie to justify greater commitment to a tragic Vietnam conflict. Ellsberg had been McNaughton's assistant.

McNaughton, Ellsberg said, was against the escalation. But when he could not forestall it, John became a loyal accomplice.

The question the nation faces today is: how much longer will we remain willing accomplices to an Iraq conflict that succeeds only in distracting us from the growing threat of terrorism?