The Case Against the War.

An excellent article by Jonathan Schell in The Nation, titled The Case Against the War. It outlines the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration's drive to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

As discussed by Schell, the real consequence of Bush's foreign policy insanity is that if you want to avoid being attacked by the US you should develop weapons of mass destruction as quickly as possible. Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons but in all likelihood did not - it will be attacked by the US in the near future. North Korea which probably has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will be dealt with diplomatically according to the Bush administration - Bush's cronies claim that the nuclear threats from North Korea are "not a crisis." And Iran, which really hasn't been mentioned much by the Bush administration (other than the axis of evil comment), is putting together nuclear reactors that are capable of producing weapons-grade material and has just begun mining uranium from its own soil (Russia is supplying the know-how for the nuclear reactors).

But Bush's foreign policy insanity really becomes obvious when considering Pakistan. Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, is having a huge upsurge of militant islamic fundamentalism closely tied to the Taliban and Al Qaeda (I read a recent PBS interview with Seymore Hersh where he suggested that the Bush administration allowed the escape of Al Qaeda fighters into Pakistan at the request of the Pakistani secret service, the ISI). Pakistan also provided North Korea nuclear weapons know-how (and received missile knowledge in return). In other words, by the definition of the Bush administration, Pakistan with its strong terrorist ties is the most serious threat to the world - but Pakistan is an ally of the US and is now receiving billions in aid.

So by Bush "logic" the fewer weapons you possess (and probably, the more oil you possess) the greater the chance the US will attack you. The more nuclear weapons you possess, and the closer ties you have to terrorists, the less likely the US will attack you - and hell, we'll give you billions of dollars to spend on training your terrorist friends.

Sarcasm aside, with the US's upcoming "pre-emptive" strike against a would-be WMD builder and its "diplomacy" with a self-proclaimed WMD possessor, the Bush administration sends out the strong signal that nuclear proliferation is good. This is not what I call a functional foreign policy designed to produce world peace.