Trail of Tears Letters 2002 Page

If you have submitted a Letter-to-the-Editor of your local newspaper arguing an environmental position, please allow us to print it here also. Please send a copy to me (as e-mail, Word
2000 attachment, or WordPerfect (Corel 2002) attachment.

The Bush Oil War in Iraq

What's It About

Time to Bring In the United Nations.

Links Between Iraq and 9-11

Saint Johns Basin-New Madrid Floodway (op-ed column)

Environmental Accounting by OMB

THE BUSH IRAQ OIL WAR

Submitted February 16^th, 2003
Published SMLRO February 18^th

Editor:

Following September 11^th2001, the civilized world was united in horror at the carnage visited upon Americans by terrorists. The world was ready to unite in addressing the global problems that produce such acts; broad international support existed for rooting out Osama bin Laden and the perpetrators of this atrocity.

Regrettably, the Bush White House has squandered this opportunity. Rather than focus on terrorism and its causes, President Bush has diverted world attention to what seems to be a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, power-hunger, or an empire-building thirst for the oil of Iraq.

Although the White House argues that attacking Iraq means defending the world against terrorism, the U.S. intelligence community considers this connection either undemonstrated or vastly exaggerated. The rest of the world, meanwhile, just doesn’t buy it. Elsewhere, the news media still seek and report news rather than ignorantly accepting the opinions of their corporate sponsors and politicians. Other peoples do not blindly accept the naļve argument that governments have secret information sufficient to justify unprovoked military aggression.

The question is not what a tyrant Saddam Hussein is. We all know this. It is whether U.S. use of weapons of mass destruction (including the nuclear option) against civilians in Iraq serves planetary peace. The U.S. is threatening exactly what it accuses Hussein of doing. I firmly believe the United States is better than George Bush would have it be. Certainly, the American people are better than this.

Sincerely
Alan R. P. Journet

What's It About?

Submitted March 17^thPublished SMLRO March 19^th

Editor

Despite all the protestations and justifications, there remains great confusion about the Bush Iraq war.

Is it about disarmament? If so, though maybe not as fast as we would like, this is underway.

Is it about regime change? If so, without U.N. approval, military action designed to achieve this would be a breach of the U.N. charter. Of course, when Hussein was on our side in war against Iran, he enjoyed U.S. support and much of his current military arsenal grew as a consequence. But removing offensive dictators is not a U.S. foreign policy objective. Nor, as the U.N. charter decrees, should it be.

Is it about anti-terrorism? If so, no convincing evidence has been presented to indicate either a link between Iraq and September 11th or that Iraq is a serious terrorist threat to the U.S. Every time the Bush Administration tries to make this case, the intelligence community demonstrates it to be concocted or grossly exaggerated.

Is it about breach of U.N. resolutions? If so, then why is, Israel, that perennial flouter of U.N. resolutions so frequently lauded and applauded, and why now denigrate the U.N.?

Frighteningly, there is abundant evidence that the President’s advisors have long planned to take advantage of some event that justifies military action in the mid-east simply to assert U.S. control in the region and promote U.S. business interests. Maybe Bush is just a pawn in their strategic plan and the real reason for war is ‘none of the above.’

Alan R.P. Journet

There never was much question about who would win once the U.S. invaded Iraq. The only military questions dealt with how long it would take and how many deaths of soldiers and civilians would result. We are beginning to see answers: to the first – not long; to the second – many hundreds to thousands. Of course, the current confusion can still generate further anarchy and casualties – so the suffering is far from over.

However, the fact that the Coalition seems to have won the war does not mean everything is either rosy or ethically resolved. Those who think that this invasion was about defending our freedom (as just wars have been in the past), or about liberating Iraq for democracy have been paying attention to neither the policy of ‘perpetual war’ and U.S. dominance advocated by so many Bush Advisors, or the thirst for markets and oil in the interests of U.S. industry that clearly drives almost every action of this administration domestically and internationally.

The only way the Bush Administration can avoid being labeled as Imperialists and Colonialists bent on a land and oil grab, is to turn the entire political and humanitarian mess they have created over to the United Nations to supervise. The calm, thoughtful, and experienced diplomats of the U.N. together with an international peacekeeping force have a chance of promoting a humanitarian resolution to the Iraq mess. Continued U.S. domination, however, can only inflame resentment against the U.S. in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.

Editor:

For over a year they managed a carefully orchestrated plan that deceived 70% of the American public into believing there was a connection between Iraq and the September 11^th attack on the U.S. Now President Bush and his representatives are telling everyone that they never had any evidence allowing that conclusion; the war protesters were correct all along.

Throughout the year, the White House argued that invasion of Iraq was a counter-offensive against the authors of the 9-11 attack. Now they are trying to tell us that they never said that. Do they think we actually believe the American public just deceived itself?

Addresses made by this President and his representatives consistently linked Iraq directly to 9-11 in order to justify an invasion that has now cost the lives of nearly two hundred of Americas children and many thousand Iraqis. It has also brought chaos and terrorists to a nation where neither was a major problem before.

Friends and families of military personnel should see that our loyal armed forces are being used by a ruthless President for his own ends. As the White House tries to bring the United Nations into Iraq without handing over any authority we see the first priority is defending lucrative contracts for Iraq reconstruction that were awarded without benefit of competitive bidding to U.S. corporations and friends of the Bush Administration.

It is time that Americans woke up to the disastrous priorities of this White House and rejected its occupants.

Sincerely,

Alan R.P. Journet

Prior to European settlement, southeast Missouri’s lowlands supported millions of acres of wetland forest. Drainage and forest clearing have reduced these to just a few thousand acres. As profitable agriculture expanded into the rich floodplain, many wildlife populations were reduced in number to threatened and endangered species status.

In the 1920s a levee system was constructed with a frontline levee generally following the river bank and a set-back levee cutting across land from Bird’s Point to New Madrid. This enclosed the New Madrid Floodway. Near New Madrid, a 1500 ft gap was left to serve a critical flood-control purpose: in the event of high floodwaters at the Ohio - Mississippi confluence, the frontline is blown at Bird’s Point allowing water to flow through the floodway relieving flooding in Illinois and Kentucky.

This feature was successfully employed in 1937. Despite frequent flooding, land in the floodway was purchased and farmed in full knowledge of this plan.

Since backwater floods annually inundate adjacent lands, the gap allows floodplain connection with the river providing nursery habitat for river fish and habitat for aquatic species. Combined with the frequent flooding of lowland depressions, where local rainfall accumulates, these floods maintain the few remaining patches of wetland forest habitat.

To reduce cropland flooding, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with local residents, developed an $85 million plan to close the levee gap and install pumps to eliminate accumulated local floodwaters. Conservationists, however, remain concerned about the project:

The project threatens the few forested wetland acres remaining and thus the wildlife habitat and species they support. Although wetland forest creation is promised, the historic record of Corps failure in this regard leaves opponents unconvinced. Meanwhile, closure of the gap will separate river fish from their nursery habitat and thus will threaten many species.

Although the project will benefit farmers adjacent to the gap by extending their growing season, local landowners already profit so much from the flooded nutrient rich soils that they refuse to sell any land to create a wetland refuge. Interestingly, the major project beneficiary would be the family of one New Madrid resident and landowner who serves with unconscionable conflict of interest on the body that oversees Mississippi River management, the Mississippi River Commission.

Although one objective is to increase local crop production, current national crop surpluses and low commodity prices mean that new cropland will simply reduce crop profitability to farmers across the nation. Since local gain must come at the expense of farmers elsewhere the project does not contribute to national economic development as proponents claim.

Proponents claim it will reduce flooding in local communities and thus promote economic development, but this is doubtful. East Prairie, for example, suffers from frequent local floods resulting from heavy local rainfall; the levee gap, however, is blameless. The city’s problem is that it is in the lowlands and possesses an inadequate storm drain system. The project does not address this issue; even after project completion East Prairie will still suffer floods one year in ten. Flood problems in neighboring Pinhook, meanwhile, could largely be solved by raising the roads a few inches. Urban flood problems require a different, less costly solution.

While providing local flood control, levees ultimately enhance flooding. Combined with upstream deforestation, levees are probably the greatest cause of flooding; inevitably the water must go somewhere, and this is usually onto downstream floodplains. More creative solutions are needed to address flood problems, solutions that recognize and balance human needs with the needs of the environmental life support system upon which we rely.

While threatening the valuable natural resources of Southeast Missouri and allowing a few wealthy landowners to become wealthier, the project is destined not to achieve its urban flood control objective. Since it pits residents of Southeast Missouri against their neighbors across the river in the search for flood protection and comes when national budget deficits are ballooning, this project does not warrant millions of taxpayer dollars.

Although the Corps is charged with environmental protection, it has come under scrutiny recently for promoting projects with dubiously optimistic economic benefit – environmental cost analyses. This is another such project.

Located in the White House, the Office of Management and Budget can hardly be dismissed as a left wing environmental organization. However, as environmentalists and progressive politicians have argued for years, OMB reports that environmental regulations make sound economic sense. According to their regulatory accounting covering the last ten years of major regulatory actions, economic benefits from environmental regulations ranged from $146 to $230 billion annually, whereas costs ranged only from $36 to $42 billion. This clearly substantiates the long and widely held view that environmental destruction costs money whereas environmental protection saves money.

Given these data, it remains a source of constant amazement that from the White House to Congress to our own legislature, Republicans are trying to roll back environmental regulations. Clearly the reason has nothing to do with general economic accounting. Why, we must ask, did President Bush want toxic arsenic in our drinking water, and is now trying to pollute the environment with highly toxic mercury from power plants under the guise of a Trojan horse policy misnamed 'Clear Skies'? Why also is he trying to destroy our forests with a program labeled for public relations purposes his "Healthy Forests Initiative”?

From the White House to Congress to Jefferson City elected Republicans exhibit no interest in what is best for Americans, our environment, or our economic well-being. They are interested in but one goal: namely greater profits for corporations and individuals paying the campaign contributions that elect them.

TRAIL			OZARK CHAPTER
	of
		TEARS
SIERRA CLUB			GROUP