[Peace-discuss] Peace Bulletin: Gulf War II: The Possibilities (fwd)
patton paul
ppatton at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Fri Nov 29 12:19:31 CST 2002
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 29 Nov 2002 17:24:38 -0000
From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Dr. Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Peace Bulletin: Gulf War II: The Possibilities
Dear MoveOn Bulletin reader,
I'm writing to introduce you to another resource we offer: the
MoveOn Peace Bulletin. The MoveOn Peace Bulletin alternates
weeks with the MoveOn Bulletin, and focuses on peace and other
international issues. Currently, it goes out to an audience of
over 50,000 people, including folks in almost every country.
The most recent issue of this bulletin (below) focuses on the
potential new war on Iraq, including what it could involve, what
the outcome could be, and what could come afterward.
Other recent Bulletins have covered China, children and war,
political journalism, and the lingering effects of the British
Empire. The Peace Bulletin is edited by Susan Thompson, who
also edits the MoveOn Bulletin.
I hope you will find this resource useful, thought-provoking,
and informative. You can sign up for free at:
http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3
Sincerely,
--Eli Pariser
International Campaigns Director
MoveOn.org
November 29th, 2002
___________________________
GULF WAR II: THE POSSIBILITIES
MoveOn Peace Bulletin, International Edition
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
Susan V. Thompson, Editor
susan.thompson at moveon.org
Leah Appet, Editorial Assistant
leah at moveon.org
Read online or subscribe at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub
CONTENTS
--------
1. Introduction: Still on the Brink
2. One Link: What Does the US Hope to Gain?
3. UNSC Resolutions: Stopping War, or Justifying It?
4. Potential Coalition Members
5. Current Preparations
6. US Strategy and Troops
7. Iraqi Strategy, and the Possibility of Success
8. Costs
9. Casualties and Humanitarian Consequences
10. Regime Change
11. Effects on Veterans
12. Next?
13. Free Booklet Offer
14. Credits
15. Get Involved
16. About the Bulletin
INTRODUCTION: STILL ON THE BRINK
--------------------------------
Will there be a war on Iraq in the next few months? The UN has passed the
US/UK resolution on Iraq. Some argue that this has blocked the possibility
of war for the time being. Weapons inspectors have arrived in Baghdad, and
the optimistic view is that Iraqi compliance with these inspections could
yet stave off conflict.
Yet while the rest of the world continues to stress the importance of the
inspections, the US remains intent on war. The Bush administration has
made it clear that the inspections are little more than a delay before the
inevitable full-blown attack. For example, the US very recently
characterized Iraqi anti-aircraft fire as a "material breach" of the UN
resolution, questioned the competence of Chief Inspector Hans Blix, and
flat-out stated that even if the weapons inspectors find nothing, the US
will still assume that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Nor have
current preparations indicated any withdrawal of aggression. Intimidating
numbers of US troops and equipment are now within striking distance of the
Iraqi border. US and British planes have been flying missions over the
Iraqi no-fly zones that are knocking out more important targets with more
frequency. Diplomatic preparations for the war, which include negotiating
participation in a US-led coalition, are being made in earnest. And US
plans for a post-Hussein regime are apparently in the final stages of
discussion.
Meanwhile, Dec. 8th is fast approaching. It is the deadline for the
government of Iraq to release a complete report detailing its weapons
capabilities. If the report is incomplete, late, or otherwise
unsatisfactory, it is likely that Iraq will be declared to be in "material
breach" of the UNSC resolution. The US may then draft a new resolution
authorizing war to be presented to the UN, probably largely due to
international pressure to once again ensure international consensus before
acting. Or the US may argue that a new resolution is not needed, and
launch a war on Iraq without UN approval. Some British reports have
already pinpointed the official start date of a new Iraq war as Dec. 16.
So there are many indications that we remain on the brink of Gulf War II.
As the gap between threat and action continues to close, a much clearer
picture of the strategies, tactics, and potential consequences of the war
is emerging. Based on current reporting and the statements of US
officials, it is even possible to begin to piece together a general idea
of what the war could look like, from start to finish. For example, it
seems clear now that 200,000 to 260,000 US troops will be involved,
including reserve troops; that plans for a post-Hussein regime all seem to
include an immediate period of rule by a US military regime, headed by a
US general; and that a new Gulf War could potentially kill 500,000
civilians, according to conservative estimates.
We are loath to accept the idea that an Iraq war is already a foregone
conclusion and this bulletin is not meant as an argument for despair.
Rather, now that we are ostensibly in the crucial last days before the
war, we believe it is time to examine the war plans being laid in order to
stop them.
Now more than ever, it's time to work for peace.
ONE LINK: GOALS OF THE WAR
--------------------------
What does the US hope to gain from Gulf War II? According to the Bush
administration, the goal is to disarm Iraq, thereby making the world a
safer place, and helping win the "war on terrorism." Yet not everyone
believes that this is an accurate statement of the goals of the war. "[A]t
first sight, the longer-term gains for the US look pretty limited, whereas
the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. A general Middle
Eastern conflagration and the collapse of more pro-Western Arab states
would lose us the war against terrorism, doom untold thousands of Western
civilians to death in coming decades, and plunge the world economy into
depression,* writes Anatol Lieven, senior associate at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. So why is the current administration
still risking it? In this thoughtful article from the London Review of
Books, Lievens proposes several reasons:
* to scare the countries in the region into capitulating to US and
Israeli interests
* to secure access to oil
* to counter the threat of competition from China by surrounding it
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n19/liev01_.html
UNSC RESOLUTIONS: STOPPING WAR, OR JUSTIFYING IT?
-------------------------------------------------
The UN Security Council (UNSC) unanimously passed the US/UK resolution
regarding Iraq on Nov. 8. It requires Iraq to accept weapons inspections,
and to provide a detailed report on their weapons capabilities by Dec. 8.
The full official text of the UNSC resolution can be found at:
http://www.moveon.org/r?23
The question now is whether the US will seek a new UN resolution before
actually launching an attack on Iraq, or if it will launch an attack on
its own and justify it based on the language of the current resolution.
Unfortunately, there are still gray areas in the resolution that the US
could cite as permission to attack Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,834986,00.html
Yet while the Bush administration insists that "[i]f the Security Council
fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this
resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend
itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United
Nations resolutions," Stephen Zunes, an associate professor of politics
and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of
San Francisco, argues that the resolution does NOT authorize the US to use
force against Iraq. Some key pieces of diplomatic language make it clear
that the US is to seek a new UN resolution first.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1114-03.htm
Iraqi officials are "staggered" by the extent of access that the weapons
inspection team is demanding, and are concerned that they may have
difficulty meeting the Dec. 8 deadline for the submission of their
detailed report on Iraq's weapons capabilities. Any tardiness in
submitting the report could be seen as a "material breach" of the UN
resolution and could be used to justify war.
http://www.moveon.org/r?24
Weapons inspectors have arrived in Iraq, but Hans Blix, the chief
inspector, is accusing Washington of being behind a smear campaign that
appears designed to discredit him. According to the Guardian, "The US
whispering campaign against Mr Blix, a former Swedish diplomat, may be
designed to undercut any report that is favourable to Iraq," and thus help
justify war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,842944,00.html
Columnist Charley Reese comments that "Saddam will have a greater problem
if he doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. If he has some, he can
turn them in; if he doesn't, he's stuck with trying to prove a negative,
which is impossible. How can anyone prove he does not have something to a
person who won't take his word for it? No matter how much searching the
arms inspectors do, if there is nothing to find, the Bush administration
will likely claim it's still hidden somewhere."
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20021120/index.php
What if no weapons of mass destruction are found by U.N. weapons
inspectors inside Iraq? According to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld,
"What it would prove would be that the inspection process had been
successfully defeated by the Iraqis. There's no question but that the
Iraqi regime is clever, they've spent a lot of time hiding things,
dispersing things, tunneling underground." In other words, war will go
ahead either way. Rumsfeld has also been promising that a war on Iraq
won't last more than five months.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html
Richard Perle has also stated that the success of the weapons inspections
will not stop US war plans. Perle told British M.P.'s "I cannot see how
Hans Blix can state more than he can know. All he can know is the results
of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have
weapons of mass destruction."
http://www.moveon.org/r?25
The US has appeared impatient about waiting for the "failure" of the
weapons inspections. The US government recently claimed that Iraqi fire at
US warplanes over the "no-fly" zones is a contravention of the security
council resolution. The UN's secretary general has been quick to disagree
with this interpretation of the resolution in the midst of concerns that
the US could use this an an "automatic trigger for war."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1119-01.htm
POTENTIAL COALITION MEMBERS
---------------------------
Who is likely to support an attack on Iraq? If the US doesn't seek a new
UN resolution, it will probably be difficult for the US to find support.
The US is not seeking a broad coalition, but is focusing on building a
coalition that includes Britain, Turkey, and possibly Australia.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1120/p01s01-usmi.html
Canada has also been asked to commit troops.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/14/powell_021114
Arab states such as Jordan and Egypt fear that if they support the US war,
they will "face an eruption of domestic anger" that could threaten their
own regimes. In contrast, Israeli leader Ariel Sharon has vowed to attack
back if Hussein attacks Israel, raising the specter of another
Arab-Israeli war.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/2239277.stm
CURRENT PREPARATIONS
--------------------
The foundation for war with Iraq is being carefully laid, both
diplomatically and militarily . This is an excellent overview of the Bush
administration's current efforts to build international support for a war
on Iraq, with an eye towards creating a coalition as well as gaining
support for a possible new UN resolution authorizing the use of force.
Some information on troops and equipment is also provided.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.20E.up.lay.iraq.htm
In fact, a secret "war before the war" is currently taking place, with the
goal of either toppling Hussein's regime without a full-blown attack or
just paving the way for a full-blown attack.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021202-393574-2,00.html
The US is already amassing troops near Iraq as part of "training
exercises", and is bombing the "no-fly" zones frequently, which, according
to this article, is to help cripple Iraq's air defense systems in
preparation for a US attack.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/iraq-n06.shtml
The following is an excellent guide that shows the buildup of US troops
using a clickable map.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,791671,00.html (flash animation)
US STRATEGY AND TROOPS
----------------------
November through February is the optimal window for an Iraq campaign,
given seasonal considerations of daylight, temperature, and climate,
military experts say.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0913/p01s02-usmi.html
It appears that a war on Iraq could be a "Christmas Blitz" starting on
Dec. 16.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/news5.html
In April, General Tommy Franks told senior Pentagon officers that a new
war against Iraq would likely take five divisions and 200,000 troops. At
the time, other officials said it was more likely that a second Gulf War
would rely on fewer ground troops than suggested by Gen. Franks, and be
"more air-centric."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020426-41274916.htm
The most recent reports indicate that the plan to use 200,000 troops still
stands, but it will be part of a strategy of swift surgical strikes aimed
at ending the conflict as quickly as possible. Air and ground operations
will occur almost simultaneously.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1112/p01s01-usmi.html
The Guardian offers an excellent guide which explains the five main phases
of a possible US war on Iraq. A short overview of possible casualties is
also offered for each phase. Apparently there is the chance that Hussein
may use nerve gas against US troops. If nuclear war erupts (which could
happen if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel retaliates) some 4 million Iraqis
could be killed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,650132,00.html (flash animation)
IRAQI STRATEGY, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCCESS
----------------------------------------------
Would it be easy to win a war against Iraq? That seems to be the general
assumption, especially in light of the recent "success" in Afghanistan.
Donald Rumsfeld has predicted that a war on Iraq will be short. On Nov.
14, he said, "I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five
weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than
that." However, this prediction may be strategically ill-informed. Dr.
Tony Dodge, an expert on Iraq, contends that war on Iraq this time will be
much different than in the first Gulf War, and could be long and bloody.
http://commondreams.org/headlines02/1116-04.htm
Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) provides seven reasons to oppose the Iraq
war, the seventh of which is that defeating Iraq would be militarily
difficult. According to FPIF, it is a mistake to compare a new Gulf War to
the first Gulf War, or even the war on Afghanistan, because:
* Iraq's offensive capabilities have been weakened but its defensive
military capabilities remain strong.
* In the first Gulf War, only two of the eight divisions of the elite
Iraqi Republican Guard were ever in Kuwait, and they pulled back
before the war began in mid-January. Meanwhile, Iraq's strongest
forces were withdrawn to areas around Baghdad to fight for the
survival of the regime itself, where they remain.
* Iraq has a far more sophisticated infrastructure than the largely
rural and tribal Afghanistan that could be mobilized in the event of a
foreign invasion.
* The lack of support from regional allies could result in an absence of
a land base from which to launch US aerial attacks.
* US soldiers could be faced with bitter, house-to-house fighting
(including in Baghdad, a city of 5 million people).
* There is no Iraqi equivalent to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance to
fight the war for the US. The Kurds have been abandoned twice by the
US and the armed Shiite opposition has largely been eliminated.
* There is the possibility of ongoing guerrilla action by Saddam
Hussein's supporters.
* Without Saddam Hussein's regime, it is likely that Iraq could erupt
into civil war, leaving the US faced with fighting to maintain peace
in the midst of competing armed factions.
http://www.fpif.org/papers/iraq2.html
Iraqi defectors disagree about how hard Iraqi troops would fight to repel
a US attack. They point out that the Iraqi military has been split into
the regular army and the Iraqi Republican Guard and special forces, the
latter being charged with protecting the Hussein regime.
http://www.moveon.org/r?26
While some Iraqi troops may defect, others may fight hard, especially
since they will be defending their homeland rather than a new acquisition
(as in the case of Kuwait). Hussein may also use his weapons of mass
destruction in defense of his regime, assuming he has them. The conclusion
this paper draws is that "...an American military victory against Iraq is
imminently achievable. The only question remains: at what cost?"
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/primer-iraq.cfm
It appears that Iraq may be planning on concentrating its 400,000 troops
in cities, forcing the US to fight a ground battle in major centers rather
than a desert battle, which would give the US a better chance to use air
strikes. This "street-level" combat would result in higher numbers of
Iraqi civilian casualties, and higher numbers of US casualties as
well--probably much higher than in other recent wars. However, experts
disagree about whether or not US soldiers would get "bogged down" as a
result of the strategy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,771600,00.html
Retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command for
U.S. forces in the Middle East, spoke at the Middle East Institute's
annual conference, and offered his own predictions and reservations about
war with Iraq. According to Zinni, success in Iraq can't be measured
purely by military outcomes, but rather in political terms, i.e., whether
the political goals of the war are accomplished.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14317
Rep. Ron Paul lists some of the unintended consequences that he thinks
could come from a war on Iraq. Highly recommended.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul55.html
COSTS
William Nordhaus, Sterling professor of economics at Yale University, has
stated that "One way or another, Americans will pay for the war." Based on
recent studies, Professor Nordhaus estimates that in a best-case scenario,
the war will cost about $50 billion US dollars, with reconstruction
efforts costing anywhere from $20 billion to $500 billion. If the war
becomes protracted, costs could easily climb higher. This is bearing in
mind that the US only paid about $2 billion for the first Gulf War,
because Saudi Arabia picked up the tab for the rest; in a new Gulf War,
the US will be solely responsible for the costs.
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=20419
Economists agree that a war is likely to have a negative impact on the
economy and might tip the US into recession.
http://www.moveon.org/r?27
Higher oil prices are also a given.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/791713.asp?0dm=H17NB&cp1=1
CASUALTIES AND HUMANITARIAN CONSEQUENCES
----------------------------------------
The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War have
released a new report which predicts that a US-led attack on Iraq could
kill between 48,000 and 260,000 civilians and combatants in just the first
three months of conflict. According to the report, post-war health effects
could take an additional 200,000 lives.
http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html
The humanitarian crisis that would ensue as the result of a new war would
include the creation of 1.5 million refugees. Yet unlike Afghanistan,
there is currently no infrastructure for dealing with such a crisis.
http://www.moveon.org/r?28
REGIME CHANGE
-------------
This article asks, "Is the Bush administration's promise to create a
democratic paradise in a post-Saddam Iraq for real -- or just more
salesmanship for war?" Based on the poor results of reconstruction in the
former Yugoslavia, the answer is that the US can't be counted on to follow
through on its promises.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6750
The Bush administration has revealed that they plan to install an American
military regime in Iraq, to remain in place for several years. It would
closely resemble the post-war occupation of Japan, and would likely be run
by a US general, such as General Tommy Franks. The occupation would
require 75,000 troops, and would probably cost about $16 billion dollars.
http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=1132572002
Recent reports suggest that a US military regime is just the first part of
a three-stage plan for governing a post-war Iraq. The following two stages
would include a vaguely defined "international civilian administration,"
and finally "a representative, multiethnic Iraqi government after some
sort of constitutional convention." The plan was created by an interagency
task force named the Executive Steering Group.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N2359238
The Sunday Herald lists the top contenders for Saddam Hussein's job, all
of whom are described as "thugs."
http://www.sundayherald.com/27877
Interestingly, one of current top prospects to fight Saddam Hussein's
regime, the Iraqi National Congress (INC) was completely engineered by the
Rendon Group, a public relations firm with links to the US administration.
The leader of the INC, who could be picked to replace Saddam Hussein, has
very little support among the Iraqi people, meaning that he may not gain
their support. This excellent article also very cogently summarizes the
past exploits of public relations firms in the build-up to US wars, and
especially the first Gulf War.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK13Ak01.html
Any post-Saddam regime will face the challenge of building consensus
between the numerous Iraqi anti-Saddam factions.
http://www.moveon.org/r?29
A private US firm, under contract with the State Department, is "training
Iraqi exiles in economics, accountancy and finance in preparation for
restructuring the country's state-controlled system into a Western,
market-driven economy." This training is part of the "Future of Iraq
Project."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.17D.train.iraqis.htm
Will a regime change lead to more stability in the Middle East? This is a
very interesting article which examines the aims of a new Gulf War in
light of the history of the Middle East, and compares the planned US-led
regime change in Iraq to the regime change carried out there by the
British in the 30's. Both regime changes, according to the author, are
explicitly related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and unless that
conflict is solved, it is unlikely that a new regime change will be
successful in stabilizing the region. Note that this article refers to
comments by involved parties that indicate that the goal of a post-Gulf
War II regime is to create "a non-Arab Iraq."
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=843
LONG-TERM GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
-----------------------------------
Even a successful war effort in Iraq could have long-term consequences
that we aren't currently able to imagine. This excellent article overviews
the results of interviews with a diverse group of experts, and in the
process, debunks some of the common assumptions about a war on Iraq,
including the idea that it could be quick in-and-out war, and the idea
that installing a democratic regime is possible. However, the ultimate
point of the article is that we need to look beyond the short-term
consequence of war on Iraq.
"Wars change history in ways no one can foresee. The Egyptians who planned
to attack Israel in 1967 could not imagine how profoundly what became the
Six Day War would change the map and politics of the Middle East. After
its lightning victory Israel seized neighboring territory, especially on
the West Bank of the Jordan River, that is still at the heart of disputes
with the Palestinians. Fifty years before, no one who had accurately
foreseen what World War I would bring could have rationally decided to let
combat begin. The war meant the collapse of three empires, the Ottoman,
the Austro-Hungarian, and the Russian; the cresting of another, the
British; the eventual rise of Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy;
and the drawing of strange new borders from the eastern Mediterranean to
the Persian Gulf, which now define the battlegrounds of the Middle East.
Probably not even the United States would have found the war an attractive
bargain, even though the U.S. rise to dominance began with the wounds
Britain suffered in those years."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm
EFFECTS ON VETERANS
-------------------
Soldiers in a new Gulf War would be facing the possibility of exposing
themselves to the same environmental factors which are currently being
blamed for a constellation of illnesses referred to by the general name of
"Gulf War Syndrome." For one thing, any ground troops would be exposed to
depleted uranium, or DU, left over from the first Gulf War, which may be
to blame for high rates of cancer and birth defects both among Iraqi
civilians and veterans of 1990 Gulf War.
Probably one of the best guides on Gulf War Syndrome is this one, provided
by the National Gulf War Resource Center. If you have the time, you may
want to read through the entire thing, which explains the possible
relation of veterans' illnesses to chemicals, weapons, pollutants, and
diseases which were present in the Gulf War environment. According to the
guide, 110,000 American Gulf War veterans have reported health problems
since their service.
http://www.ngwrc.org/shg/page2.html
Some 3 out of 4 servicemen and women may have come into contact with DU
during the Gulf War.
http://www.miltoxproj.org/DU/dupd.htm
For information on training techniques, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
and other issues affecting veterans in general, please see MoveOn's
previous bulletin, "Learning to Kill" at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin41.php3
NEXT?
Iran, which President Bush has listed as part of the "axis of evil," is a
likely future target. If the US successfully attacks Iraq, it would be in
the ideal position to attack Iran, or possibly Syria or Lebanon. According
to this article, Israel regards Iran as a major competitor, and much more
of a nuclear threat than Iraq; thus Israel is advocating that Iran be
next.
http://www.moveon.org/r?30
Perhaps out of awareness of the fact that it could be next, Iran appears
to be making some preliminary moves towards aiding the US with a new Gulf
War.
http://www.moveon.org/r?31
FREE BOOKLET OFFER
------------------
Does Saddam Hussein's regime pose a "mortal threat" to the US and Iraq's
neighbors? How have sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait
affected ordinary Iraqis? How has the Iraqi regime stayed in power despite
its defeat in the Gulf war and a decade of sanctions? Has the US attempted
to end the 12-year confrontation between Iraq and the UN through peaceful
diplomacy? What drives the Bush administration's policy of "regime
change"?
In a concise backgrounder (15 page booklet) published by the Middle East
Research and Information Project (MERIP), Sarah Graham-Brown, author of
Sanctioning Saddam (1999), and Chris Toensing, editor of Middle East
Report, offer answers to the major questions swirling around the Iraq
crisis of 2002. The backgrounder is ideal for all settings -- classrooms,
church meetings, union hall discussion, teach-ins, student groups, peace
vigils, ect. While supplies last, order whatever number your group can
realistically distribute. There is no charge whatsoever.
To order copies or for further information, contact MERIP at
ctoensing at merip.org. MERIP can ship to US addresses only.
If you want to peruse the backgrounder first, it is available online at:
http://www.merip.org
An updated second edition of MERIP's Iraq backgrounder will soon be
available in print at no charge, while supplies last. If you are
interested, contact MERIP at ctoensing at merip.org. MERIP can ship to US
addresses only.
CREDITS
-------
Research team:
Dean Bellerby, Joanne Comito, Anna Gavula, Wendy Hamblet, Keiko Hatch,
Russ Juskalian, Mary Kim, Maha Mikhail, Vicki Nikolaidis, Ben Spencer, Ora
Szekely, and Sharon Winn.
Proofreading team:
David Taub Bancroft, Madlyn Bynum, Carol Brewster, Melinda Coyle, Nancy
Evans, Anne Haehl, Mary Kim, Dagmara Meijers-Troller, Leslie Strudwick and
Alfred K. Weber.
GET INVOLVED
------------
If you would like us to include an action, news article, or source for
more information in the bulletin, please write to
susan.thompson at moveon.org and describe your item in the subject line.
ABOUT THE BULLETIN
------------------
The MoveOn Peace bulletin is a weekly newsletter providing resources,
news, and action ideas to over 50,000 people around the world. The full
text of the bulletin is online at
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub ; users can subscribe to the
bulletin at that address also. The bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
Contact susan.thompson at moveon.org for more information.
---------------------------------------------------------
You can help decide the direction of the 9-11Peace campaign by
participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=224
This is a message from the 9-11peace campaign of MoveOn.org. To
remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription
management page at:
http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=920-483317-jcrzQxH_tWecGr4XBAex0g
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list