As Iraq, so Iran: Scott Ritter on run-ups to war

Glenn Greenwald today discusses an interview of Scott Ritter published in the San Diego Citybeat (first blogged by Taylor Marsh in FireDogLake). Ritter declares that The Regime's current approach to Iran is identical to its tactics in preparing the way for war with Iraq:

I say be careful of falling into the trap of nonproliferation, disarmament, weapons of mass destruction [regarding Iran]; this is a smokescreen. The Bush administration does not have policy of disarmament vis-à-vis Iran. They do have a policy of regime change. If we had a policy of disarmament, we would have engaged in unilateral or bilateral discussions with the Iranians a long time ago. But we put that off the table because we have no desire to resolve the situation we use to facilitate the military intervention necessary to achieve regime change.

It’s the exact replay of the game plan used for Iraq, where we didn’t care what Saddam did, what he said, what the weapons inspectors found. We created the perception of a noncompliant Iraq, and we stuck with that perception, selling that perception until we achieved our ultimate objective, which was invasion that got rid of Saddam.

Ritter also says this regarding the many shrill and vicious efforts to stifle debate and dissent over the recent years:

QUESTION: What is it about Americans that allows them to get so bent out of shape when you start questioning the government in a time of war?

RITTER: I’ll say ignorance. How many Americans have read the Constitution and know the Constitution, live the Constitution, breathe the Constitution, define their existence as Americans by the Constitution? Very few. And so what happens is, Americans have no concept of what citizenship is, what it is they’re supposed to serve. Many Americans have become so addicted to a lifestyle that I say they’re better consumers than they are citizens. And it’s these consumers who have wrapped themselves in a cocoon of comfort and who have basically abrogated their responsibilities of citizenship to the government, and as long as the government keeps them waddling down the path to prosperity, they don’t want to rock the boat. And they will go out and attack those who do rock the boat—those who challenge authority.

If you read the Constitution, you’ll be struck by the first words: “We the people of the United States.” And yet it sickens me where Americans will say, in the name of security, they will give up their constitutional rights. Warrantless wiretapping—it’s against the law! This is the sort of issue that should bring Americans streaming into the streets, saying, “Not on my watch.” If your definition of patriotism is blind subservience to governmental authority, then you’ve just defined those Germans who supported Hitler, the Italians who supported Mussolini.

This has been said before, and equally well, but it is worth hearing again. I was struck by his comment about consumerism replacing citizenship. And by the whole case in the last paragraph, one more frequently made, that submission to the suppression of dissent is the most egregious blow that can be delivered against our democracy. Terror, not terrorism, is our worst enemy: one thinks of FDR's famous "the only thing to fear is fear itself." I am not old enough nor learned enough in FDR lore to be sure, but I reckon he did not quite mean it in the way we might hear it today.