Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

It appears that John Ashcroft has taken on the duty of not just enforcing the law, but redefining it for us, as well.

Attorney General Ashcroft said that those who complained of lost liberties during the war on terror “aid terrorists” by giving “ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”

And, if you have a Salon Premium membership (or are willing to watch the ad for a free day pass), you can read the rest of the story about how the media has been helping Bush silence his political opponents. Not even Ani DiFranco is safe.

You might want to consider stocking up on the real essentials. Duct tape be damned.

Since we’ve discussed effective military strategy and the body count listed to the right of these entries is steadily rising, let’s move on to a much more important subject. That would be the rebuilding of Iraq after we’ve turned parts of it into smaller and smaller parts of rubble.

It’s a big issue. I mean, let’s take a look at Afghanistan. Here’s a country that had not even started rebuiliding from being bombed into the Stone Age by Russia before we started dropping bombs and turned their Stone Age to gravel. Now, we’re occasionally sweeping the fields for more terrorists while humanitarian aide trickles into the country – and the new government (that currently has our support) is shaping up to be even worse than the Taliban (whom we supported until they helped launch attacks against us).

So what awaits Iraq? A country that has never known humanitarian aide (aside from the U.N.’s multiple programs designed to help the civilians who had been hurt by trade sanctions, not to mention hurt by bombings and military actions). Well, that’s an interesting question. One that Molly Ivins has had a lot of fun answering for us.

Notice how there are countries out there who are not supporting any attempt to put the U.S. in charge of the rebuilding of Iraq? It’s not people just being contrary or not liking America. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the U.S. likes to sell things off in order to save them. And that’s exactly what the current Bush administration plans to do to rebuild Iraq. After all – our American corporations are doing such a great job rebuilding our flagging economy. We can surely depend on the economic friends of such sterling companies as Enron and its cronies.

Remember Bush saying that the oil wells belonged to the Iraqi people? And that they would be important to the rebuilding of Iraq? Well, how else is Halliburton supposed to justify accepting a government contract to its stockholders?

Yes, Halliburton – former corporate hideout of Dick Cheney – has been invited to bid on a reconstruction contract. That’s right. Invited. As in, these contracts are not open to public bid. They’re an “invitation only” affair.

It’s the benefit of being a wealthy, corporate sponsor of the Republican administration.

Our friends over on the cable networks have spent the day talking about the print media’s reactions to prisoners of war, American casualties, and the military strategy in Iraq. The question, they say, is whether the doubts stirred up by the casualties we’ve suffered are blown out of proportion, or if those doubts are an appropriate response.

Well, lets consider the elements here.

First and foremost: War is Hell. If centuries of pop cultural references to this particular truth have yet to drill this into your skull, allow me to repeat it. War is Hell. This is why we generally try to avoid it. People die in wars. They die on all sides, regardless of race, gender, age, or even military status. Young, old, male, female, army, navy, civilian – people die. If you were actually foolish enough to consider this war a good idea without considering the fact that people die, then I’m sorry you’re exposed to this particular brand of shock and awe. Truth: People die. Not just them, but us, as well. From the stance of all of those involved except the ones who call the shots, there are no winners.

Second: American casualties so far number 39 confirmed dead. From the 507th Maintenance Company, 11 have been confirmed missing – including the P.O.W.’s shown in Iraqi videos.

Third: As I look at my website at 22:37 on Monday, March 24, 2003, the confirmed Iraqi civilian body count is 214.

Now, any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind (to steal words from John Donne) – but while it may seem callous to look purely at cold, hard numbers, I can’t help but feel that the current figures on casualties make me feel a bit… less diminished than I thought I would.

I wish to remind you – I opposed the war. And, while I support our troops, I still oppose this war. We’re in it now, and if we’re going to fight it we shoud fight it, but it was initiated at the wrong time, in the wrong fashion, by the wrong man, and I will not rally around George Dubya “W” Bush after he has alienated the international community and reinforced the Ugly American image in the minds of millions worldwide.

However, I have to admit that I am stunned that we have dropped as many bombs as we have and the count of dead civilians in Iraq is still so low. It appears as though strategies to “minimize civilian casualties” have actually managed to succeed at some level.

Now, some of our people have been captured. They’re in the hands of our opponents. And, naturally, we’re concerned. As far as we can tell, no attempt has been made to treat them according to the standards laid out in the Geneva Convention. And, according to WorldNet Daily, there’s no indication that any such attemptswill be made.

“First of all, we are committed to the teachings of Islam. We are faithful Muslims. We take care of our prisoners of war in accordance with our teachings of Islam,” Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told a BBC radio program.

According to an Agence France-Presse report, the foreign minister said, “We are committed first of all to the teachings of Islam, and second we are committed to the conventions of Geneva in dealing with the prisoners of war.”

That whooshing sound you just heard was the sound of billions of gallons of blood running cold, worldwide. The blood of Americans considering what this means for our P.O.W’s, and the blood of muslims everywhere considering the consequences of a public declaration that muslims consider the law of man breakable in favor of Islamic law (regardless of what many muslims might actually think).

Just think of it as being similar to any peace-loving American’s reaction to Bush suggesting that we have to be willing to use nuclear weapons in a first-strike situation. We don’t agree with him, but he’s the image the rest of the world sees.

I don’t want to belabor a point (me? never), especially when John has made most of the argument that I’m about to make. However, we can’t really expect everybody to “play by the rules.” We, in fact, managed to win a revolution against our former colonial masters by refusing to play by the rules (“You hide behind rocks and trees and shoot? How uncivilized. You should line up in straight lines and march forward, unprotected.”). It’s part of smaller nations getting into wars with bigger nations. The only way to stay alive is to break the rules constantly and consistently.

To try to sum all of this up and tie up my usual logical morass in a nice, neat bow – we have a surprisingly effective and efficient strategy in Iraq – so far. Casualties are not acceptable in a war – they’re never acceptable. But they are an inevitability.

So, why the big fuss?

Because, on the one hand, we have a generation that has never had a war with real casualties. Casualties in Desert Storm were the result of friendly fire accidents. In other military actions, they were few and far between. For the first time, we’re seeing Americans encounter resistance (when the administration did all but out-and-out promise a cakewalk for weeks – a promise we didn’t believe, but many swallowed, anyway), and we’re seeing American P.O.W.’s being mistreated by their captors. For the first time, we’re being shown that we’re ot necessarily the roughest kids on the block.

On the other hand, we have generations who lived through Vietnam and Korea – people who watched horrible atrocities occur, and some of whom actually lived through them. They watched what was supposed to be a quick military action turn into a prolonged conflict that cost many lives on both sides. And now, we’ve got a President who has refused point-blank to respond to the question of how he can offer assurances that this won’t happen again. And the recent captures and the resistance being encountered makes them afraid that we might get bogged down again.

I’d like to close this entry with two important texts.

The first one should be of interest to all of the “rally ‘round the flag (boys)” people who have been insisting that it’s time to get behind the President (in the morning and plow) and support the war, and that the time for dissension is past. This movement has been pushed by the Republicans with amazing power. Funny, they didn’t seem to feel that way back when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo – as this handy-dandy PDF file shows. Keep in mind that these are public figures talking about a current President during a time of conflict – the same thing hippie peacenik liberals like me are being told is “treason” in this particular, Republican-led conflict.

The second one is John Donne – a text that is often cited, but not always seen in its entirety.

Meditation XVII
from Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions

Nunc lento sonitu dicunt, morieris.
(Now this bell tolling softly for another, says to me, Thou must die.)

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me and see my state may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that. The church is catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all. When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that head which is my head too, and ingrafted into the body whereof I am a member. And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated. God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another. As therefore the bell that rings a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness. There was a contention as far as a suit (in which piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled) which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined that they should ring first that rose earliest. If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his whose indeed it is. The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God. Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out? Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Neither can we call this a begging of misery or a borrowing of misery, as though we are not miserable enough of ourselves but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbors. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did; for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current moneys, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels as gold in a mine and be of no use to him; but this bell that tells me of his affliction digs out and applies that gold to me, if by this consideration of another’s dangers I take mine own into contemplation and so secure myself by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.

1624

(text taken from http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/)

Not only is it fun to watch The View girls stand up for war protestors, now they’re ganging up on their guest – Bill O’Reilly.

“So, if you say people shouldn’t protest, how are people who believe the war is wrong going to make themselves heard?”

“Just put a sign on your lawn – ‘The war is wron—’”

“Oh, that’ll be effective.”

“Marching down to Times Square is ineffective.”

“There’s no way you can know that.”

And now they’re defending Michael Moore!

Why is it that the only mass media outlet I’ve seen acknowledge that protesting the war and supporting the troops are two different things is The View?

This is the only mainstream media outlet I’ve watched that actually stated that anti-war protestors are not anti-American, that war protestors do support the troops, and that the protestors may be right, and who then went on to say that the current backlash against protestors is McCarthyism.

Good grief. I’m watching Barbara Walters, suddenly!

So, Richard Gere didn’t get a nomination.

Chicago still won best film.

Strange new things lurk on the horizon. What could this be?

Click for larger image

And what could these be?

Click for larger image

Yes, they’re rough new concept sketches. But for what? For a new story? Are they for a new album cover? Maybe another attempt at a comic strip?

Or could it be something much, much more frightening – yet another one of Glen’s famous long-term projects?

Stay tuned for more details…

I have received a lot of comments on my post the night that we went into Baghdad. Some of them have been more polite than others.

I responded to the first comment on the post in the comments section. I started to respond to more of the comments, but the respose became similar to an entry in length very quickly. So, I have decided to post it as an actual entry, instead.

Thank you, all, for your comments. However, Alisa,

“freedom of speech in your sense is teetering on the line of treason.”

I thank you for your concern, but I feel you are operating under a misguided definition of treason.

It is not treason to voice political dissent, nor is it treason to say that the President is wrong. Even in times of war.

Treason is defined as giving aid to our enemies in a time of war. I do not harbor terrorists, I am not feeding information to Iraq, and I am neither plotting nor condoning the overthrow of the American government, violent or otherwise.

And, Glenn,

“Bottom line is this folks: Agree to disagree on matters of policy. However, if red, white, and blue blood flows through your veins and you have documentation certifying you as a citizen of this country, now would be a good time to pray for our president, our congress, our Armed Forces, and do a little good ol’ fashioned flag waving!”

I bleed red, white, and blue. But the current administration’s vision of America defies everything that I was taught America stood for. I can pray for the President, yes. And I can pray for the Congress. And I can and do pray for our Armed Forces. But this does not change the fact that I don’t agree with the President and feel that he could have done a better job if he had actually tried diplomacy in more ways than just asking the UN for permission to attack.

I can tell that many of you disagree with what I say. I can tell that many of you feel that I’m being un-American. And it’s all right for you to think that – but as I have stated before, I consider myself a patriot. I vote in elections local, state, and federal. I do not belong to the military, but I support our military and am glad that it exists. And I believe in the system when it works the way it is supposed to.

However, I feel that Bush has distorted facts, taken greater power than he is allowed under the constitution, and has alienated the international community with his actions. And I will spare you a paragraph or two on whether or not he is the man we elected to lead us.

Our freedoms are what make America great. I can’t understand, then, why my thankfulness for my freedoms should lead me to surrender them, just because I disagree with the current administration and its recent actions. I particularly don’t understand why my being thankful for my freedom of speech should lead me not to use it at a time that the framers of the Constitution knew it would be needed for. One of the reasons we even have a defined freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights is because the founders of our great nation had just come out from under the control of a government that quashed dissenters and imprisoned people for printing and distributing anything that criticized the government. They knew that in order to prevent the Government from abusing its power over the media and the common man, freedom of speech had to be clearly defined as an inalienable right.

If you disagree with me on the issues, that’s part of America. But it’s also part of America that I am allowed to disagree with you. My freedoms are my own – and my exercising of them is – by definition of the terms “inalienable rights” – protected.

And in response to all variations of “Love it or leave it” – I love it. That’s precisely why I don’t leave it, and it’s precisely why I open my big mouth in the first place. I love this country – and I want what’s best for it. Just because I may disagree with you over what’s best for it doesn’t make me un-American. I want our freedoms protected. I want leadership that cares enough about the American people to actually respect them, talk to them, and answer their questions. I want to believe that my government is doing the right thing when it sends troops in – I honestly do. But I feel that Bush has not made the case, and I feel that it is my right as an American citizen and my duty as a patriot not to roll over and play dead just because the man holds the highest elected office. He is not a King. He does not exercise control over all media, his word is not law (as long as there’s still a Legislative and Judicial branch in this country), and he does not have a Divine Right that makes his word the word of God.

I cherish my freedoms, and I cherish yours. And while I may not agree with what you say, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. So, please, do not try to outlaw what I have to say, and do not threaten me for saying it. We have the right to have our own opinions, no matter what the circumstances.

TalkLeft says:

To clarify: The anti war movement failed to prevent this war. We were as as committed to opposing this war as you all were. But it’s on. So let’s get it over with.

We now have to work to get Bush out of the White House—protect ourselves from Ashcroft, prevent the further erosion of our civil rights and protect the rights of non-citizens and the citizen accused.

The media today is full of admonitions for the peace movement to give up. The push now is for all of those who opposed the war to turn around and “get behind the commander-in-chief”. We failed to prevent the war, the logic goes, so we lost.

Yes, and no.

The war has begun, and we all suffer. As far as our preventative hopes, we have failed. But that doesn’t mean that the peace movement has failed. And it certainly doesn’t need to drop it all and rally ‘round the flag.

Support the troops. Support those who are overseas fighting the war. But this does not mean that we must support the war or the one who made the decision to go in. The war is still wrong, and for us to drop our convictions in its support merely because it has begun would be to deny that we ever held any convictions to begin with.

I pray for the safe return of our troops now fighting in Iraq. I also pray that the civilian losses in Iraq will be light. I have little doubt that the war will be “won” by the American military, but I still dispute the idea that anybody wins in a conflict such as this. And I still feel that it was wrong for us to mobilize without the support of the international community. And while I may not be able to stop the war any more than I was able to prevent it, I will continue in my vocal criticism of Bush’s international policy.

That is what it means to be an American and to have the right to speak our minds.

And in further response to TalkLeft’s statements today – yes. We do have to work to get Bush out of the White House. Continue to work toward that goal, and toward the protection of our citizens. Perhaps, indeed, it is time to pick our battles. The upcoming election is one of them, as is the defense of our basic human and civil rights against the continual onslaught of the Bush administration. But “let’s get it over with” is not the responsible reaction to the beginning of an unjust war that will forever damage America’s image in the international community. Let’s work to make sure this doesn’t happen again – but while we work on that, let us not lay down while our leaders take us into such a war.

Support the troops. But don’t support the man who became their commander in chief by virtue of the Supreme Court’s whim and a few pieces of hanging chad.

Christmas in the Trenches – John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
‘Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, “Now listen up, me boys!” each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
“He’s singing bloody well, you know!” my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
“God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen” struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was “Stille Nacht.” “Tis ‘Silent Night’,” says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
“There’s someone coming toward us!” the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man’s Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave ‘em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
“Whose family have I fixed within my sights?”
‘Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they’d kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore

My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I’ve learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won’t be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we’re the same

CNN’s got their theme music composed, graphic artists are pulling out all the stops to get the title screens pumped, and the conservative brute squads are out in full force. The “Love it or leave it” troops are knocking on doors, calling C-SPAN hotlines, and doing pretty much everything in their power to paint anti-war patriots as the most evil creatures since Lucifer fell.

Perhaps I’m a cynical young man. But I feel disappointed that the President Select can get away with calling his pushing and bullying in his quest for war “exploring every diplomatic opportunity”. And I may be reading much more into Bush’s statements than he deserves, but I feel that it was a nice illustration of his priorities that before he asked Iraqi soldiers not to use weapons of mass destruction, and before he asked Iraqi soldiers not to kill our troops, and before he asked Iraqi soldiers not to kill their own people, he made absolutely certain to ask Iraqi soldiers not to burn oil wells.

At this point, I’d just like to say: If Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, and Jimmy Carter all say that you’re being an ass, the chances are pretty good that you are an ass. It’s just a little bit like Mother Teresa telling you to go to Hell.

The best part of sitting through the Commander in Thief’s speech was getting to watch C-SPAN’s replay of Robin Cook’s speech to the British House of Commons. I have a little bit to say about that, but first – a brief digression.

I couldn’t help but notice that the Houses Common of both England and Canada were very well-attended. And, in addition, the members of each house were extremely attentive. I can’t remember the last time I saw the American House or Senate on C-SPAN and didn’t see our elected officials wandering in and out of the chambers, talking to each other while their colleagues had the floor, or just walking about in a power daze. And as for catching the Senate and the House at times when they’re close to full? Unless it’s the State of the Union, forget it.

So, let’s get back to Robin Cook and his incredible, awe-inspiring speech.

This is not an exaggeration on my part. Some have gone so far as to call Robin Cook’s speech concerning his decision to retire from Blair’s cabinet (he remains in the House of Commons) a shining moment in modern British politics. I would go so far as to call it one of the greatest moments in modern politics, period.

In explaining his decision and his stance on the issues, Cook was the consummate statesman. He was dignified, polite, and well-spoken – but firm and decisive. His speech was clear, concise, and logical without being stiff and boring. And he showed evidence of actually thinking, as opposed to blindly following party lines.

I was so awestruck by his speech, that I felt an incredible urge to seek out his speech and copy it over to my site. Which I did.

The text of this speech is taken from the BBC News website, where no mention is made of Cook being anti-patriotic or of him being one of Saddam Hussein’s secret lovers. Why is that? Because the BBC News is still respectable – it’s a long way from CNN.

God bless you, Mr. Cook. In one speech, you proved that civil discussion is viable in modern politics, and that we do not have to resort to the rhetoric of hate to make a point in this contemporary world. Were the world full of more people like you, we would not be in this situation today.

Cook’s resignation speech

This is the first time for 20years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner – not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term – namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain’s positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.